Bohs exceeding 65%?

[Dodge]

Small bit on the back of the Star today claims that Bohs have exceeded the 65% salary cap thingy and have been told to fix it by the FAI.

It was only a line or two at the end of a piece on Cork's troubles. Anybody read/hear anything else?

[pineapple stu]

have been told to fix it by the FAI.
The good old slap on the wrist treatment. That'll fix it.

Wonder will they accrue a payment from Danninger for E1m in their end of year accounts to get around the wage cap?

[Mr A]

Jeez, looks like Bohs could have the most expensive youth coaches in Ireland this year.

[Dodge]

For the record the "fix it by the FAI" is entirely my wording. I've no idea if Bohs were sanctioned in similar ways to clubs like Galway last year.

[pineapple stu]

For the record the "fix it by the FAI" is entirely my wording.
Fair enough.

[pete]

The good old slap on the wrist treatment. That'll fix it.

What other alternative is there? Expel them from the league?

The FAI have said previously that they monitor the accounts on monthly basis & if club exceeds 55% they meet with them to work out the remedy. I think breaking 65% mid season means transfer embargo.

Of course we are close to the stupid mid season break which means all clubs will probably be financially tight.

[micls]

What other alternative is there? Expel them from the league?



Transfer embargo, points deduction etc. Eventually relegation

[OneRedArmy]

The good old slap on the wrist treatment. That'll fix it.

Wonder will they accrue a payment from Danninger for E1m in their end of year accounts to get around the wage cap?

I doubt accrued income counts towards salary cap percentage?

In any case, only a joke shop auditor would sign off on an accrual on a contract that was subject to legal action from a counterparty that was subject to a winding up order. But having seen the car parks revaluation in last years accounts, anythings possible....

[pineapple stu]

I doubt accrued income counts towards salary cap percentage?
It shouldn't, but my cynical mind says you may as well give the FAI every chance to fudge it.


But having seen the car parks revaluation in last years accounts, anythings possible....
The car park revaluation was necessary to keep the company solvent and avoid an EGM being called.

[pete]

Transfer embargo, points deduction etc. Eventually relegation

True, but not now or yet.

[Dalymountrower]

I`d be surprised if we weren`t, given that we are awaiting 100 k for Ward from Wolves and whatever we get out of European participation. The actual money "gates" have been pretty crap so far afaik .
I understood that the sanctions in respect of the 65% were only applicable if exceeded in the relevant calendar year?

[OneRedArmy]

Are you talking about European money for 09/10? That doesn't come until the Champions League Final is done....in May 2010.

You get a small upfront travel payment but you will use that for travelling to the CL qualifiers.

[dublinwanderer]

if they exceeded the 65% pay cap, should they not be punished or is that all looked at when the season is over???

[Dalymountrower]

Gate receipts and TV rights, if any, would be about the extent of it for this calendar year alright.

[pete]

I understood that the sanctions in respect of the 65% were only applicable if exceeded in the relevant calendar year?

Correct.

[Ezeikial]

What other alternative is there? Expel them from the league?

The FAI have said previously that they monitor the accounts on monthly basis & if club exceeds 55% they meet with them to work out the remedy. I think breaking 65% mid season means transfer embargo.

Of course we are close to the stupid mid season break which means all clubs will probably be financially tight.

A transfer embargo is not a real sanction

Check out what Padraig Smith was quoted as saying in the recent Indo article -

'And in light of their recently leaked financial documentation, which showed an operating debt of over €1m for 2008, are Bohemians in danger of overspending this year?
“The Salary Cost Protocol is a big issue for them this year,” says Smith.
“But that goes without saying, when you have salaries that are so high and the other side of the business not generating sufficient income to match that expenditure, it’s obviously worrying.
“We’ve met with the club and the club is well aware of its obligations and the rules and the sanctions for breaching those rules.
“It will be an issue, and it is something that we will be monitoring throughout the season and we’ ll know by the end of the year if they’ve breached it. If they do breach it, they will be sanctioned accordingly by relegation and non-participation in Europe. '

That statement is pretty clear about the consequences of breaching the limit!

[Dodge]

That’s if it’s a year long thing. Pete is talking about the minor "transgressions" that happen during some months of the season (eg Galway last year). If Bohs make the necessary corrective actions and over the period of the season their wages are below the 65%, then they're fine

[peadar1987]

That’s if it’s a year long thing. Pete is talking about the minor "transgressions" that happen during some months of the season (eg Galway last year). If Bohs make the necessary corrective actions and over the period of the season their wages are below the 65%, then they're fine

If you wanted to be really pedantic you could say every club breaks 65% on the day they pay their wages!

Surely it just goes on the end of year accounts, and any fluctuations within the year are okay so long as it averages out below 65%. Gate receipts will obviously be down during the summer break, for example, but wages will still have to be paid

[Longfordian]

It would go on the monthly accounts I assume to determine the ongoing situation.

[Ezeikial]

That’s if it’s a year long thing. Pete is talking about the minor "transgressions" that happen during some months of the season (eg Galway last year). If Bohs make the necessary corrective actions and over the period of the season their wages are below the 65%, then they're fine

I agree with you that the only pragmatic view is the end of season analysis. Pre-season budget submissions, monthly accounts reviews etc appear to be simply a monitoring tool to act as a "red light" warning indicator. If clubs ignore the FAI advice or cautions (as Padraig Smith clearly implies has occured) and are found to be over the cap at season end, then relegation and disqualification from Europe is the consequence.

It is interesting that he is uniquivical about this, yet the FAI record on fudges is legendary.

The notion of a club who is exceeding the 65% in mid season having a transfer embargo on July signings as a sanction is hilarious

[pete]

That’s if it’s a year long thing. Pete is talking about the minor "transgressions" that happen during some months of the season (eg Galway last year). If Bohs make the necessary corrective actions and over the period of the season their wages are below the 65%, then they're fine

Exactly. The FAI don't want clubs to exceed 65% rule so they monitor monthly accounts against the agreed budget to ensure problems are spotted in advance. Galway United last year is the best example.

[Celdrog]

The notion of a club who is exceeding the 65% in mid season having a transfer embargo on July signings as a sanction is hilariousStart laughing so
http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/bohemians-hit-with-transfer-embargo-after-breach-of-salary-protocol-1739810.html

"LEAGUE of Ireland champions Bohemians have been hit with a transfer embargo due to overspending on players.

The FAI last night confirmed to the Irish Independent that the sanction had been placed after the latest set of monthly accounts filed by the double winners revealed that they are currently in breach of the Salary Cost Protocol."

[Buile Shuibhne]

Some of the Galway lads might be able to answer this one.

If a club has to release players to get below the 65% - can They just release players who are under contract. Obviously in the current climate there's not much hope of other clubs paying transfer fees or being able to match the wages that these players are on?

Can contracts be voided in these circumstances?

[forza rovers]

Some of the Galway lads might be able to answer this one.

If a club has to release players to get below the 65% - can They just release players who are under contract. Obviously in the current climate there's not much hope of other clubs paying transfer fees or being able to match the wages that these players are on?

Can contracts be voided in these circumstances?they are just released

[sligored]

Mark Rossiter does not get wages from Bohs.

He took an insurance payout when his professional contract ended with Sunderland due to his knee injury. Therefore he cannot now recieve financial reward for playing football as this was part of the settlement.
He is paid big money for coaching instead of wages- another way of avoiding the 65% cap.

[Dodge]

Pretty sure they can't just be released (without consent). I'd imagine employment laws over ride FAI protocols.

Transfer embargo when no club can sign players until July is pretty funny in fairness...

[Mr A]

More coverage of this in the Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2009/0515/1224246567972.html


Club public relations officer Brian Trench admits the situation is serious, but maintains the club is working hard to address the “revenue side”, having already reduced the annual wage bill from €1.95 million to €1.2 million in recent months.

While there are considerable debts, it appears at least that the Revenue Commissioners are not a major creditor and he says the new board hopes to be able to brief the club’s staff and members on how it intends to move forward soon.

[Dodge]

So even getting debt down to 7.5% of what it was, its still "considerable". Jaysus…

And they're wage bill is still €1.2 million

[pineapple stu]

So even getting debt down to 7.5% of what it was, its still "considerable".
Where do you see that?

[Dodge]

Ah balls I'm mixing up my Cork and Bohs doom stories again....

[Mr A]

Hehehe, Dodge is all mixed up- thread title Mr Dodge, you're mixing up your financial basketcases.

[eamo1]

Its changing to 65% of wages for ALL staff from next season,playing and non playing staff.Its currently just 65% for playing staff.I think they should put the change back a couple of seasons due to these hard times.
BTW-1.2 million is completly nuts.

[RoversHead]

"We are making every effort to get within the 65% rule..........I cant say what the chances of success on that will be .Im not going to put a bet on that."Brian Trench Bohs new PRO admitting last friday that Bohs are cheating and probobly wont stop.
The FAI transfer embargo is the powers that be saying we know your cheating and this will make it look like we are doing something about it.All emotion aside Bohs and Cork are cheats and both clubs have had ample opportunity to trim their wage bills to comply with the rule.

[Mr A]

Its changing to 65% of wages for ALL staff from next season,playing and non playing staff.Its currently just 65% for playing staff.I think they should put the change back a couple of seasons due to these hard times.

It's an interesting point. On the one hand the FAI want clubs to employ more off the field staff, but this measure will encourage them to ditch them to spend more on players.

It would be better if the 65% (or whatever percentage) included all football related staff (coaches, managers etc) but not admin and commercial staff.

I disagree about putting it back though, the sooner and the the tighter the regulation the better.

[Dodge]

"We are making every effort to get within the 65% rule..........I cant say what the chances of success on that will be .Im not going to put a bet on that."Brian Trench Bohs new PRO admitting last friday that Bohs are cheating and probobly wont stop.
The FAI transfer embargo is the powers that be saying we know your cheating and this will make it look like we are doing something about it.All emotion aside Bohs and Cork are cheats and both clubs have had ample opportunity to trim their wage bills to comply with the rule.

Is there a suggestion that Cork aren't under it too?

[pete]

BTW-1.2 million is completly nuts.

I think 1.2m is surprisingly low for Bohs given their team is full of experienced players. Obviously coaching thing gets around some of it. Probbaly only looking at average E50k or so for full squad as also nhave employer PRSI etc...

[RoversHead]

"We are making every effort to get within the 65% rule..........I cant say what the chances of success on that will be .Im not going to put a bet on that."Brian Trench Bohs new PRO admitting last friday that Bohs are cheating and probobly wont stop.
The FAI transfer embargo is the powers that be saying we know your cheating and this will make it look like we are doing something about it.All emotion aside Bohs and Cork are cheats and both clubs have had ample opportunity to trim their wage bills to comply with the rule.

[Ezeikial]

"Club public relations officer Brian Trench admits the situation is serious, but maintains the club is working hard to address the “revenue side”, having already reduced the annual wage bill from €1.95 million to €1.2 million in recent months"

The impression here is that Brian Trench is saying that they have reduced their wage bill over the last few months - does he mean since the start of the season?

[pineapple stu]

"In recent months" probably encompasses the pre-season? I think they have cut the wage bill since last season (through a combination of releasing players and reallocating wages). It's just not enough of a reduction.

[RoversHead]

Is there a suggestion that Cork aren't under it too?More than a suggestion, Corks wage bill is a ticking time bomb but the issues with the proposed winding up of the holding company will do for them before that bomb goes off.Id imagin things are tight at Derry aswell and wouldn`t be surprised if they had a bit of a clear out fairly soon.As for Pats their recent gates would suggest more squad cuts to come soon, 65% of their income cant add up to much but unlike our deluded cheating friends in Dalymount they are at least attempting to play by the rules.

[Raheny Red]

Transfer embargo when no club can sign players until July is pretty funny in fairness...

As a Shels fan aptly put it this morning, "like being barred from a boozer for the duration of Good Friday." :D

[Ezeikial]

"In recent months" probably encompasses the pre-season? I think they have cut the wage bill since last season (through a combination of releasing players and reallocating wages). It's just not enough of a reduction.


If they are relating to current wage bill versus last season, then the phrase "in recent months" is disingenuous at best.

Either way, I find it hard to get my head around the suggestion that Bohs have trimmed their wage bill by almost 40%, particularly when you consider the late pre-season additions of Keegan, Shelley, and Ndo.

I can certainly understand the accusations of cheating that are being levelled at Bohs. If they fail to get their house in order in relation to the 65% cap, perhaps they deserve the sanction of graveyard time visiting Kildare, Monaghan and Mervue as has been clearly stated as a consequence by Padraig Smith.

[John83]

I can certainly understand the accusations of cheating that are being levelled at Bohs. If they fail to get their house in order in relation to the 65% cap, perhaps they deserve the sanction of graveyard time visiting Kildare, Monaghan and Mervue as had been clearly stated as a consequence by Padraig Smith.
If that happens, it might actually generate some good will for and faith in the financial compliance side of the FAI administration. For now, it's not hard to imagine it'll all be fudged yet again.

[dublinred]

I can't see many clubs being within the 65% in the current economic enviorment , costs are generally fixed and income varies so if a club remains within the approved costs at the begining of the season and income is way down they can hardly be sanctioned by the people who approved the budget in the first place.

[niallsparky]

"We are making every effort to get within the 65% rule..........I cant say what the chances of success on that will be .Im not going to put a bet on that."Brian Trench Bohs new PRO admitting last friday that Bohs are cheating and probobly wont stop.
The FAI transfer embargo is the powers that be saying we know your cheating and this will make it look like we are doing something about it.All emotion aside Bohs and Cork are cheats and both clubs have had ample opportunity to trim their wage bills to comply with the rule.

In fairness to Brian Trench, he's only recently elected. Our new board have some big problems to fix. I do agree though that if we finish the season above the 65% threshold then there should be a severe punishment.

[RoversHead]

I can't see many clubs being within the 65% in the current economic enviorment , costs are generally fixed and income varies so if a club remains within the approved costs at the begining of the season and income is way down they can hardly be sanctioned by the people who approved the budget in the first place.Costs are fixed to an extent but a club can release players they cant afford.The problem is budgets were excepted that were based on exagerated gate revenue in Corks case and champions league and domestic fantasy in Bohs case not to mention their magic pencil accounting, FAI dug this hole .

[GuisaSaigon]

Some of the Galway lads might be able to answer this one.

If a club has to release players to get below the 65% - can They just release players who are under contract. Obviously in the current climate there's not much hope of other clubs paying transfer fees or being able to match the wages that these players are on?

Can contracts be voided in these circumstances?

When we ran into similar trouble last season our players eventually agreed to take a pay cut. All players were free to leave the club if offers came in from other clubs. I believe that some players who left the club at the time made arrangements with the Galway United that some severance payments were made periodically after they joined their new clubs/pubs.

Legally clubs cannot just release players under contract without coming to an agreement with the player

[Mr A]

In fairness to the FAI- they cannot dictate to private companies what they do, they can only punish them if they breach the guidelines at the end of the season.

And I'm not sure clubs can just release players they can't afford unless another club is willing to take them.

[RoversHead]

In fairness to Brian Trench, he's only recently elected. Our new board have some big problems to fix. I do agree though that if we finish the season above the 65% threshold then there should be a severe punishment.So its ok to be above 65% all season as long as the books look 65% at the end of the season, buisness as usual at Bohs so.By the way your magic pencil accounting which got you the licence never mind your title and champions league entry shoulda had you relegated already and may still do.you are cheats and yis know yis are just ask Mr Trench.

[CMcC]

Ha ha - sounds like a school yard here. 'Yis are cheats !!!'