Bohs Court Case

[Schumi]

There is not ample access from the other end of the groundCould they not access the site through the car park from the area where Bohs used to sell tickets?

[Dodge]

What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly.

If anyone thinks this is good for the league, then you are as misguided as the people who put Bohemian FC in this position.

Ah boo ****ing hoo. A majority of Bohs fans did cartwheels at the various meltdowns faced by Rovers and Shels, so you're in no position to moan about people laughing at your current troubles.

PS... thread like this (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=81144) were bound to be brought back up

[Dalymountrower]

We really appreciate the good wishes and the hearfelt concerns;)
Theres so much money at stake for both Bohs and Albion that unless it was an unequivocal slam dunk victory for either side , it was always going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Given the equivocations, anomalies and inconsistencies littering the judgement, its odds on that Bohs will risk the 150 k it will take to appeal it to the Supreme Court. I might open a book on it and head down to Richmond Park for expert advice on laying odds.
Could be worse, we could have got the 65 mill two years ago and invested it in the high interest Icelandic banking sector, or in Anglo Irish Bank shares!

[Sheridan]

Anyone who laughed at Shams' meltdown (I don't remember doing so) was treated like they'd raped someone's granny on here.

[Réiteoir]

Worst comeback ever. particularly with todays news

tbh - I know were pretty much shafted and up the Tolka creek without so much as a damp copy of the Golden Pages with which to paddle with - allow me that one at least.

Although I have to say - I agree with BohDiddley here just now - there are a well informed minority who are seeing this for what it could be - sadly that minority are vastly outnumbered by the gorillas on here - who when they aren't dragging their knuckles on the floor are using them to bash their keyboards and come out with ****e.

Enjoy the Glasnevin Social lads - it's the third grave on the left as you head through the main gates...

[OneRedArmy]

What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly.Nice case of selective amnesia.

Your fans spent weeks at the time of the deal lording it about how they would dominate for generations on the back of this deal and ignored everyone who warned them that Bohs were dealing with people who were a lot brighter than them.

Lesson: if you behave like arrogant *****s you'll find a lot of people waiting to throw it right back at you.

Edit: Just to be clear, I don't subscribe to the view that this is good for the League, in the same way had the deal gone through it also wouldn't have been good for the League.

[irishultra]

whose responsible for this?

[charliesboots]

We really appreciate the good wishes and the hearfelt concerns;)
Theres so much money at stake for both Bohs and Albion that unless it was an unequivocal slam dunk victory for either side , it was always going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Given the equivocations, anomalies and inconsistencies littering the judgement, its odds on that Bohs will risk the 150 k it will take to appeal it to the Supreme Court. I might open a book on it and head down to Richmond Park for expert advice on laying odds.
Could be worse, we could have got the 65 mill two years ago and invested it in the high interest Icelandic banking sector, or in Anglo Irish Bank shares!

Care to explain the anomalies and inconsistencies littering the judgment?

It was one of the most thorough judgments I have ever heard and it was obvious that a great deal of consideration was given and a great deal of effort put into writing it up.

John Edwards, while only a short while on the bench, was one of the very top and most highly respected lawyers in the country for years.

[dfx-]

A club sells something twice and budgets for a large wedge of money they don't have on that.

What's not good for the league in that being called up. That sort of business sense being weeded out should be celebrated :confused:

[charliesboots]

What it is is bad publicity for the league (as is the Pats betting thing).

The outcome of it is specifically bad for Bohs and not the league.

Whatever the outcome of this is Bohs have a huge asset in Dalymount that will ensure their solvency so they won't go bellyup even though they may be sanctioned.

[niallsparky]

What it is is bad publicity for the league (as is the Pats betting thing).

The outcome of it is specifically bad for Bohs and not the league.

Whatever the outcome of this is Bohs have a huge asset in Dalymount that will ensure their solvency so they won't go bellyup even though they may be sanctioned.

Finally a bit of sense on here. Comments from some people are laughable i.e. people claiming Dalymount has little or no value in the present economic climate. :rolleyes:

[centre mid]

I'm not sure I see any benefit for the league in this.

Its bad for Bohemians, also it may have a knock on effect for any clubs who were looking at selling players to Bohs in the winter to help their own money woes.
It doesnt help attendences at other grounds.
It doesnt improve facilities at other grounds.
It doesnt improve the standard of officialdom in the league.
It doesnt help attract advertising to the league.

I could give two fooks about Bohs to be honest, especially the schooligans that seem to follow them wherever they play, but can someone explain to me why this is "good for the league", petty rivalry aside.

[pineapple stu]

Because your points, valid though they are, are concerned only with short term thinking. For the league to be taken seriously - and that includes by potential sponsors, the media, players thinking of signing for an eL team and the general public - this kind of nonsense has to stop. (I appreciate it's a losing battle in many quarters in any event).

[Founders]

The outcome of it is specifically bad for Bohs and not the league.
Agreed,Pats betting against themselves is a whole lot worse for the league:mad:

[Dodge]

I could give two fooks about Bohs to be honest, especially the schooligans that seem to follow them wherever they play, but can someone explain to me why this is "good for the league", petty rivalry aside.

By ensuring that Bohs don't have €40 million to develop facilities and structures that would see them dominate irish football for years. not to wention pay massive wages to players

[Dodge]

Agreed,Pats betting against themselves is a whole lot worse for the league:mad:

When did this happen? Rumours last I heard...

[galwayhoop]

Disagree - if you're talking of a figure that low compared to the original €65 estimate, then there are plenty of people out there who'd pay that for the site. Even to sit on for 10 years, there are a lot of people who'd view it as a more stable investment than most in the current climate.

are you about 6 or what. the €65m was a vastly over inflated figure agreed at a time when people thought the good times would just keep rolling on and thought the value of land was whatever it took to out bid the other fella!!!

Shops and businesses throughout the country are feeling the pinch, every 10 minutes a person losses their job in the country and no bank or financial institution is prepared to lend any money worth talking about, yet you think "there are plenty of people out there who'd pay" €10 to 15 million "to sit on for 10 years". get a life man. (i haven't even mentioned that the site now has massively restricted access following todays ruling!!!)

just because someone was prepared to pay €65m for something 2 or 3 years ago does not necessarily make it good value at €10/€15m today ... ask anyone who bought BoI shares at €18.65 and is looking at their share value today!!! by your logic regardless of their market value people should be snapping them up at anything up to €4.30 - ask Sean Quinn how gambles like that are going these days....

The fact of the matter is the type of people who were prepared to pay massive sums of money for land and "sit on it" untill they saw a return are the very people who the banks could send to the wall if they asked for their money right now, the banks won't do it though as they know the property bubble has burst and they will be left with vast chunks of worthless land for years to come.

Plenty of people indeed...:rolleyes:

[dcfcsteve]

Let's say that selling Pat McCourt possibly saved the club. Massive enough for you?

And I disagree that E30k is a "relatively minor sum" in Irish football. It's 5% or so of our budget we're missing, for a start.

€30k is not a "massive" sum of money in Irish football. Your acknowledgement that it is only 5% - not a "massive" percentage - of the budget for the club in the premier league with the smallest revenues shows that it isn't a "massive" sum.

Sales of 180 of City's 'Dream Draw' tickets would cover the €30k you keep harping on about. And we've got individual sellers who've sold more than that many draw tickets single-handedly.

The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:

[centre mid]

If that did happen, not that it would have lets be honest, the money would dry up in 2-3 years, there is no way that they could have recouped anything like what they would be spending, €200k for winning the league and neglible tv money.

[sligored]

What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly.

If anyone thinks this is good for the league, then you are as misguided as the people who put Bohemian FC in this position.

Some of your fellow bohs supporters have been on here gloating (not yourself it must be said)about how much better ye are compared to all the other teams in the league.

Ye used this prospective money to raid many clubs players with contracts that the clubs could not match. For example in the case of sligo rovers ye were happy to seduct burns singh mansaram turner connor murphy with the lucrative contracts on offer.

And then you find it strange when other clubs supporters dont share in your grief.

:confused:

[pineapple stu]

The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:
Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

The deal you got for McCourt (400k all in?) was needed to keep the banks at bay, and there's money owed to other clubs (Dungannon mentioned for one), so the money owed to UCD isn't the full extent of your problems. I'd suggest you go off and ask questions about Derry's financial situation before commenting again. And there's not many deals between eL clubs that have exceeded E30k either.

[Dodge]

€30k is not a "massive" sum of money in Irish football. Your acknowledgement that it is only 5% - not a "massive" percentage - of the budget for the club in the premier league with the smallest revenues shows that it isn't a "massive" sum.

Sales of 180 of City's 'Dream Draw' tickets would cover the €30k you keep harping on about. And we've got individual sellers who've sold more than that many draw tickets single-handedly.

The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:

Then whats the delay in Derry paying UCD the mney they owe them.

30K is massive in our league. Its the equivalent of 2/3 good gates FFS

[Founders]

€30k is not a "massive" sum of money in Irish football. Your acknowledgement that it is only 5% - not a "massive" percentage - of the budget for the club in the premier league with the smallest revenues shows that it isn't a "massive" sum.


The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:
Not really,UCD and that Irish league team(forget who it is)have both been on about Derry not paying them for players.

If its not a massive sum,why not pay it??:confused:

[CuanaD]

Here's a link to RTE's take on the subject:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2008/1107/bohemians.html

As you can see it's not all cut&dried at all yet.

My reading of it - Bohs entered into talks with Albion about selling the land
Bohs recieved monies to the value of 1.05m euro from Albion over time
No contract was ever finallised, but the judge is taking these payments to show that Albion now have a definite ownership issue in this tract of land.

(presumably Bohs only ever wanted to give back the 1.05mil but Albion will now be looking for a far greater ransom sum)

The Daninger deal may not be affected IF Bohs can buy out Albion - depending on the terms of the Daninger contracts, but we can all be sure that Mr Carroll would LOVE to re-negotiate the deal at least.


Proviso: I'm presuming there is SOME accuracy in the RTE piece - but this bit makes me wonder: "the proposed sell-off of the stadium and its re-location to a site in Castleknock."

[pineapple stu]

Given Albion returned Bohs' cheque to buy the land, and then refused to give up their hold on the land, even letting Bohs sue them, I don't think they'll be being bought out any time soon.

[Longfordian]

Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

The deal you got for McCourt (400k all in?) was needed to keep the banks at bay, and there's money owed to other clubs (Dungannon mentioned for one), so the money owed to UCD isn't the full extent of your problems. I'd suggest you go off and ask questions about Derry's financial situation before commenting again. And there's not many deals between eL clubs that have exceeded E30k either.

I think the 55k we got for Shane Barrett is the highest between two EL clubs. It certainly was at the time and somebody in our club said they were told recently enough by somebody in the League offices that it still was. By highest i mean highest up front without add ons. So 30k is a big amount of money.

[Student Mullet]

My reading of it - Bohs entered into talks with Albion about selling the land
Bohs recieved monies to the value of 1.05m euro from Albion over time
No contract was ever finallised, but the judge is taking these payments to show that Albion now have a definite ownership issue in this tract of land.
I'm not a legal expert by any stretch but my understanding is that if money (or any other consideration) is paid then a contract is present, even if it's not written down.

[dcfcsteve]

Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

Sorry - we only pay big, important clubs. Hence why it's Dungannon and UCD we owe money to.

It's part of our plan to drive you out of Irish football. Though you seem to have done a good job of that on-the-pitch yourselves this year....

:ball:

[Schumi]

Why did Albion want this land, does anyone know?

[pineapple stu]

Shams only paid big, important creditors. That's why it was their laundrette that screwed them over ultimately.

[Student Mullet]

Why did Albion want this land, does anyone know?

I think they also own the shopping centre behind it and want to redevelop the whole lot. I remember plans being made up a few years ago, they might have even gotten planning but I'm not sure about that.

[Dodge]

Why did Albion want this land, does anyone know?

They were going to develop the Shopping centre end. part of the dela was to build Bohs some "executive boxes".

[niallsparky]

Some of your fellow bohs supporters have been on here gloating (not yourself it must be said)about how much better ye are compared to all the other teams in the league.

The league table doesn't lie. We've been the best team this season.



Ye used this prospective money to raid many clubs players with contracts that the clubs could not match. For example in the case of sligo rovers ye were happy to seduct burns singh mansaram turner connor murphy with the lucrative contracts on offer.

In fairness, I doubt it took a huge amount of money to outbid Sligo for these. Turner aside, they are/were all on relatively modest contracts for a top team's wage bill.


And then you find it strange when other clubs supporters dont share in your grief.

:confused:

When were other clubs asked to share in our grief?

[geysir]

"The judge said he had come to the view that Albion are entitled to an interest in the land involved because there was 'clear evidence of repeated promises etc"

Did the judge define the extent of the interest or is that left for another day in court?

[Dodge]

The judge delivered a 130 page judgement on it. I doubt a spourts journo, particularly one who supports Bohs, would have the legal nous to understand and intrepret all of it.

[charliesboots]

"The judge said he had come to the view that Albion are entitled to an interest in the land involved because there was 'clear evidence of repeated promises etc"

Did the judge define the extent of the interest or is that left for another day in court?

The land sectioning was fairly complicated. The crux of it is that Albion are the beneficial owners of the land that was under dispute.

The reason for the use of the term "trust" is because Bohs are effectively the legal owners but they no longer have any beneficial interest in it.

I'll try post a copy of the judgment up on Monday.

[Schumi]

The land sectioning was fairly complicated. The crux of it is that Albion are the beneficial owners of the land that was under dispute.

The reason for the use of the term "trust" is because Bohs are effectively the legal owners but they no longer have any beneficial interest in it.I'm sure I'll regret asking this but what does that mean?

[sonofstan]

What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly.

If anyone thinks this is good for the league, then you are as misguided as the people who put Bohemian FC in this position.

Not sure I can entirely blame them TBH.

Neither you or I ever came on here crowing about our money and future dominance, but a fair few did; the minority of Bohs members who kept their eyes open through the last half- decade are not particularly represented over here. There were people -you included- asking questions which, had they been answered might have meant this day wouldn't have come. As we both know, a members club and 'democracy' were no protection against the same hubris that infected Shels/ Drogs/ Cork- a few hundred people can be as deluded as half a dozen.

I'm gutted because my club is - potentially - in tatters; I really don't expect sympathy for our entirely self -inflicted wounds; at least fans of the above clubs had the excuse that they didn't know what was going on ......

[charliesboots]

I'm sure I'll regret asking this but what does that mean?

There can be two types of owners of land. Legal owners and beneficial owners (or equitable owners).

Take for example a couple who bought a house 30 years ago. Only Mr A's name is on the title deeds but both Mr and Mrs A payed off the mortgage equally over the thirty years.

So while Mr A is the legal owner, Mrs A has a 50% beneficial interest in the house.

Mr A is therefore is the legal owner of the entire house but only has a beneficial interest in 50% of the house and as legal owner holds the other 50% in trust for Mrs A.

So while Bohs are the legal owners of the disputed land (their name is on the title deeds), today's decision granted Albion the beneficial ownership over the parts of the land which the two sides had entered negotiations regarding. Bohs now, as legal owners, hold that land in trust for the beneficial owners, Albion.

[charliesboots]

Not sure I can entirely blame them TBH.

Neither you or I ever came on here crowing about our money and future dominance, but a fair few did; the minority of Bohs members who kept their eyes open through the last half- decade are not particularly represented over here. There were people -you included- asking questions which, had they been answered might have meant this day wouldn't have come. As we both know, a members club and 'democracy' were no protection against the same hubris that infected Shels/ Drogs/ Cork- a few hundred people can be as deluded as half a dozen.

I'm gutted because my club is - potentially - in tatters; I really don't expect sympathy for our entirely self -inflicted wounds; at least fans of the above clubs had the excuse that they didn't know what was going on ......

Don't want to stick the knife into anybody here and I don't know the ins and outs of Bohs internal disputes but.....Felim O'Reilly seemed to come out of the judgment pretty badly, so much so that it seems that his scampering to get money off Conroy may have ultimately cost Bohs.

[Réiteoir]

There can be two types of owners of land. Legal owners and beneficial owners (or equitable owners).

Take for example a couple who bought a house 30 years ago. Only Mr A's name is on the title deeds but both Mr and Mrs A payed off the mortgage equally over the thirty years.

So while Mr A is the legal owner, Mrs A has a 50% beneficial interest in the house.

Mr A is therefore is the legal owner of the entire house but only has a beneficial interest in 50% of the house and as legal owner holds the other 50% in trust for Mrs A.

So while Bohs are the legal owners of the disputed land (their name is on the title deeds), today's decision granted Albion the beneficial ownership over the parts of the land which the two sides had entered negotiations regarding. Bohs now, as legal owners, hold that land in trust for the beneficial owners, Albion.

Is this the Finn Harps fan and his missus we're talking about there?

[charliesboots]

Is this the Finn Harps fan and his missus we're talking about there?

touché

[bohs til i die]

So while Mr A is the legal owner, Mrs A has a 50% beneficial interest in the house.



Is this the Finn Harps fan and his missus we're talking about there?

No, its Cuffe and Conway's secret identities on a witness protection programme

[Aaron]

You'd swear you were spending millions less than them :rolleyes:

I'd be very confident we are spending less than them.


Let's say that selling Pat McCourt possibly saved the club. Massive enough for you?

And I disagree that E30k is a "relatively minor sum" in Irish football. It's 5% or so of our budget we're missing, for a start.

You know this for sure? How about some hard concrete facts to back up this statement



What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly.

If anyone thinks this is good for the league, then you are as misguided as the people who put Bohemian FC in this position.

Agreed


€30k is not a "massive" sum of money in Irish football. Your acknowledgement that it is only 5% - not a "massive" percentage - of the budget for the club in the premier league with the smallest revenues shows that it isn't a "massive" sum.

Sales of 180 of City's 'Dream Draw' tickets would cover the €30k you keep harping on about. And we've got individual sellers who've sold more than that many draw tickets single-handedly.

The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:

Indeed, UCD dont get many fans through the gates, so they can hardly have as big a budget than ours. When you consider our club has dream draws, development committees, decent crowds in the gates then we can afford to have higher budgets than the likes of UCD. Also how do you know if its a straightforward deal, as in how the money is paid. Are you so sure that there isnt an agreement on paying installments?



Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

The deal you got for McCourt (400k all in?) was needed to keep the banks at bay, and there's money owed to other clubs (Dungannon mentioned for one), so the money owed to UCD isn't the full extent of your problems. I'd suggest you go off and ask questions about Derry's financial situation before commenting again. And there's not many deals between eL clubs that have exceeded E30k either.

Well as you have alot to say on it and "seem to know alot on our financial siruation" then maybe you can shed light on what our predicament actually is?

[hoops1]

What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly

If anyone thinks this is good for the league, then you are as misguided as the people who put Bohemian FC in this position.

But alot happier.

[Schumi]

There can be two types of owners of land. Legal owners and beneficial owners (or equitable owners).

Take for example a couple who bought a house 30 years ago. Only Mr A's name is on the title deeds but both Mr and Mrs A payed off the mortgage equally over the thirty years.

So while Mr A is the legal owner, Mrs A has a 50% beneficial interest in the house.

Mr A is therefore is the legal owner of the entire house but only has a beneficial interest in 50% of the house and as legal owner holds the other 50% in trust for Mrs A.So in this example if the house were to be sold, Mr and Mrs A would each receive 50% of the money? Is there any difference between being a beneficial owner and a legal owner then?

[NeilMcD]

This is just a guess but but I am guessing that the beneficial owner cannot sell without permission from the legal owner. But possibley the legal owner can sell and give 50% (in this case) to the beneficial owner. I could be wrong there thats just a guess.

[sonofstan]

This is just a guess but but I am guessing that the beneficial owner cannot sell without permission from the legal owner. But possibley the legal owner can sell and give 50% (in this case) to the beneficial owner. I could be wrong there thats just a guess.

Don't think so; certainly in the 'Mr. and Mrs. A' scenario, the beneficial owner has to consent to the sale.

[charliesboots]

Don't think so; certainly in the 'Mr. and Mrs. A' scenario, the beneficial owner has to consent to the sale.

That would be only cos of the Family Home Protection Act though!!

Albion will be entitled to use the land for whatever they want and the land will probably be conveyed properly to them, (stamp duty and that lark) in due course where they'll be the legal and beneficial owner.....providing Bohs don't appeal.

[mypost]

iirc - it's somewhere in North Wicklow

That's called Bray Wanderers. :D