Rovers make official complaint to FAI about Bohs spending practices

[Mr A]

Interesting to note that not a single Bohs fan whose posts I've seen here or on the Bohs forum has expressed the opinion that the practise of getting around the 65% rule by paying players for other roles is not going on at their club.

[CMcC]

Interesting to note that not a single Bohs fan whose posts I've seen here or on the Bohs forum has expressed the opinion that the practise of getting around the 65% rule by paying players for other roles is not going on at their club.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I would suggest that Bohs fans would say its not going on.

This has parallels with the thread about the findings of the racism allegations re Ndo but in reverse as it were.

To answer BYCTWD, yes I can see why the question would be asked but would have expected the FAI to be the ones asking - and not through the newspapers either.

[dong]

Cretaro pulls a fine pint of Guinness apparently. :D

[Schumi]

If you or the Rovers board dont believe the FAI will conduct the licencing agreement process in a correct fashion then thats something they should take up with the FAI.Which is EXACTLY what they did Einstein.

And then leaked it to the papers?

[BohDiddley]

As opposed to, for the sake of argument, making a complaint to the FAI and SARI over allegations of racial abuse with the intention of having points deducted off Rovers?
I've not got into the discussions on that, but, for the sake of argument, as you put it, are you seriously suggesting that racism is an equivalent transgression, and that racist behaviour should not be reported?

IMHO, that is of a different order entirely, and should not be compared to Stasi snitching.

[Redie]

Could be some truth in this yet they charge €500 for a child to join so where is all that money watch this space

€500 to join what and what do they get for that money. Just curious?

[OneRedArmy]

4 pages and nobody has answered the question. Some quality interference being run though....

Bury those heads any deeper lads and you'll pop out in Australia.

[Leejo]

BYCTWD is there a post on this forum from you that isn't about Bohs?



The Bohs schoolkids didn't get medals this year because you hadn't paid the league fees. How does that tie in to the increased spend?

Unbelievable! Surely this should be taken down considering it's simply not true.

From a former schoolboy director:
Just a point noted on the foot.ie forum where i wouldn't post.
Somebody says our schoolboys didn't receive medals because the league fees weren't paid-if you don't pay your registration fees you aren't accepted to the league or are thrown out.All our teams due medals got them.
The level of nonsense some people will go to with this story is unbelievable.

[roinuj]

Full page article today in the Daily Mail on Rovers making a detailed complaint to FAI about Bohs spending practices.

Points made by Rovers include ...

how Bohs spend 190K on training facilities when Rovers only cost 35000
how schoolboys cost Rovers 40K to run 22 schoolboys teams, but Bohs spend 130K on 15 teams made by Rovers
how still 4 bar staff being employed as profits have droped from 77K to 30K

FAI have said they will raise these point with Bohs.

Conway said to be outraged!

bhs

rovers were right to hang em.
bohs seem to be allowed to break every rule in the book and get away with it.

well done rovers.

[Leejo]

rovers were right to hang em.
bohs seem to be allowed to break every rule in the book and get away with it.

well done rovers.

What rules have we broken?

[blackholesun]

Forensic analysis of accounts is an advanced science at this stage. Loadza people are paid money to dig into accounts of competing public companies to determine which one invest in or not.

The Rovers board run the club very professionally and money is very tightly managed and budgeted, so Id imagine its easy enough for Rovers to look at the Bohs accounts and do a comparison looking at their attendences and wages info they have from talking to out of contract players to see if they suspect anything fishy is going on.

I also think the following the Derry case, fudge is off the menu and the FAI will be happy to make an example of any club they can to ensure that the decades of brown envelopes and messing that has gone on in the league is eradicated for once and for all. If Bohs or any other club are declared to not have meet the 65% rule for this season, then who knows what the reprecussions will be as this will be a first.

Finally, if Bohs are squeeky clean and have nothing to hide, then maybe in these recessionary times they might take the info from the complaint and use it to help bargain a better rate from DCU! ;)

bhs

[sligored]

http://foot.ie/forums/showthread.php?p=1160710#post1160710

cant say ye were not told

[Leejo]

http://foot.ie/forums/showthread.php?p=1160710#post1160710

cant say ye were not told

Chinese whispers. Rossi can't be full time as per condition to his insurance pay out, as a result he's part time. He also coaches for the club as far as I'm aware. What's the problem there?

Next time you'd like to have a dig please do some research first.

[LukeO]

I think BohDiddley is being a bit harsh on the Stasi tbh.

[kdjaC]

I wish both clubs would grow up and mind their own ****ing business tbh.

Yeah right, its usually just rumours threads around the LOI this time of year. This is great entertainment for the off season.

[placid casual]

It seems to my untrained eyes that this is more about gettin that laughable human being francie gavin off his fat arse to do his job , alongside the FAI & padraig smyth, in sorting out this league once and for all, for the good of ALL teams.

anyone waiting on answers from bohs fans are wasting their time.
bohs fans have shown themselves to be completely in the dark about their club so dont have the first clue about whats "goin down" in D7 .

best pre-season in ages!;)

[brianw82]

best pre-season in ages!;)

Still post-season, I'd say. It's like an issue of Now! magazine around here lately. :D

[blackholesun]

That's some localised inflation rate there. How much is the programme at Dalyer now?

Do you want the price quoted in Iraqi dinars or Zimbabwean dollars?

;)

bhs

[sligored]

Chinese whispers. Rossi can't be full time as per condition to his insurance pay out, as a result he's part time. He also coaches for the club as far as I'm aware. What's the problem there?

Next time you'd like to have a dig please do some research first.

what research do you want me to do - heres my original post from last may.

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.

things might get better for some bohs fans when they get to primary school- poor lee-jo is making no sense.
Between me and you leejo mark does f*** all coaching- and a lot of your bar staff do f*** all barwork.

[roinuj]

What rules have we broken?

all of them.

[SkStu]

are the moderators actually going to start moderating here?

Rovers themselves say they have NO EVIDENCE yet everything and every accusation under the sun is being thrown at Bohs here. From Derry (ha!), Dundalk (ha!) and Rovers fans (jaysis) and one particularly nasty Waterford fan.

Absolutely brutal.

Why dont people just let this run its course - if we are guilty of something Rovers (and the fact that theyve gone to the media with this) have ensured it will be discovered sonner or later. If we are not guilty, then this will die its death.

[Leejo]

what research do you want me to do - heres my original post from last may.

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.

things might get better for some bohs fans when they get to primary school- poor lee-jo is making no sense.
Between me and you leejo mark does f*** all coaching- and a lot of your bar staff do f*** all barwork.

Primary school? Jaysus nice touch mate.

Right, thanks for re-posting your original post and completely ignoring my point. Now I'd like to restate my point that Rossi is on a part time contract.

Research: http://www.bohemians.ie/component/joomleague/?func=showPlayer&p=1&pid=19 Pay particular attention to the last line of the first paragraph, notice the word part time.

More research: http://www.sligoweekender.ie/news/story/?trs=mhcwsngbkf
Sligo’s Mark Rossiter, happily back playing on a part-time basis after his full-time career in England was wrecked by injury, was among the Bohemians substitutes.

It's commonly known Mark is on a part time contract, if he was receiving no financial reward for playing football he would be classed as an amateur, no? He is legally allowed to play football part time, not full time. Once again I ask what's the problem there?


No one is saying Mark does or doesn't get paid for a coaching role but to say he ONLY gets paid for a coaching role as a means of avoiding the 65% salary cap is pure and utter tripe. Possible slander?



But then again you probably know more about my club than I do...



all of them.

You mean none of them? Yet.*







*I added in the "yet" before someone else did, I'll remove once the figures are released and it is shown that we are legally under the 65% SCP

[Dodge]

are the moderators actually going to start moderating here?

People are commenting on a newspaper article. Most of the comments here are contained in that, and the rest clearly implied. It isn't the job of the moderators here to save your club embaressment

Perhaps one or two bohs fans might wish to counter the allegations rather than call Rovers bitter.

Of course they're bitter, amnd perhaps if they had won the league they wouldn't have reported you, but that doesn't mean the allegations don't need answering.

As for the line some are taking that "its the job of the FAI to spot these things"; The cases of Cork, Derry, Drogheda (and others) have proven they simply can't be trusted to spot financial irregularities

BTW Bohs fans, don't play dumb here. We all know the same stuff has been posted on your forum. YOu all know you have/had a transfer ban in place

[Leejo]

People are commenting on a newspaper article. Most of the comments here are contained in that, and the rest clearly implied. It isn't the job of the moderators here to save your club embaressment

Perhaps one or two bohs fans might wish to counter the allegations rather than call Rovers bitter.

What? A lot of the stuff on this thread are ridiculous unproven allegations which I have actually addressed...

http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=1283685&postcount=78

http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=1283913&postcount=93

[LukeO]

You get an infraction for saying UCD have a small fanbase yet moderators are allowing posters get away with presenting it as fact that we are guilty of allegations which are totally without foundation. :confused:

Our wage bill in 2008 was big enough ffs, if we wanted to cook the books the board would have done a better job than that.

The points raised in the Daily Mail article are easy to answer.

1) Cost of training facilities - Bohs train full-time at the DCU elite facilities. I challenge anyone here to visit them and not understand why it costs big money. I would argue that it costs far too much, but it's easy to see why it costs more than where Rovers train part-time - a junior club's ground? It's like comparing a Porsche to a ****ing FIAT.

2) Schoolboy expenses - see post from Bohs' former Youth Director http://www.thebohs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=216864#216864

3) Fundraising expenses - The 65pc rule did not come into effect until 2008. Until then, most was included in the accounts on a net basis. i.e. if we ran a Last Man Standing competition back then, only the profit from that would have been put on the club's overall books and there would not have been itemised income and expenditure for running such a venture. The same goes for raffles, lotteries, Christmas draws, monthly draws, Gala dinners etc. Since the 65pc rule came in, it's important that all that kind of thing is grossed up so that all income is put on the books to keep within the SCP, so obviously the income and expenditure for EVERYTHING is going to makes its way onto the books, no matter how trivial it may be.

But funnily enough, Rovers didn't question the dramatic increase in income under the fundraising heading (246% of the 2007 figure), they just decided to focus in on the expenditure... As one accountant member on our members' forum said: "If Rovers showed our accounts to a competent accountant they would tell them this within two minutes." Instead, they put two and two together and got five.

Rovers fans might like to think Bohs members don't question this type of thing, but I can assure them there that the accounts were given a thorough going through by members at the last AGM by people with years' experience as accountants and people involved in other areas of finance.

4) Bars - Any Bohs fan will tell you that there are a hell of a lot less people drinking in the bars than ever before, that they've been on a downward spiral for the last 4/5 years and are really struggling to draw customers midweek in an area that is incredibly well-served by alternative bars. That, combined with the increased cost of buying stock in recent years and the overall national trend of less people drinking in bars has seen profit plummet from where it was 4/5 years ago.

There is no case to answer. Bohs are clearly guilty of exorbitant and unsustainable spending over the last few years, but we have nothing to hide here.

This is a total flier from Rovers, hoping that if they throw enough mud, some of it will stick. I have to say I'm disappointed with them on this one. I've impressed with the way they've gone about their business since the 400 Club took over but I thought the days of this kind of sniping belonged in the past and that league had moved on from Ollie Byrne-type pettiness.

[Mr A]

So Bohs fans- in your opinion have your club been paying players via avenues other than the normal way or not?

Have they been paid as coaches?
Have they been paid as fundraisers?
Have they been paid as barmen?

And in each case did they actually perform the role? Or are the questions simply irrelevant because it was Rovers that asked them?

The participation agreement has a lot of references to the spirit as well as the letter of the rules, so a club could obey the letter but still find themselves in trouble.

So. Any opinions on this?

[LukeO]

YOu all know you have/had a transfer ban in place

Yes... because the FAI believed we would not meet our pre-season financial projections and would be in breach of the 65pc rule. That did not imply any fraud, which is effectively what Rovers are implyinh here. It was more of a "offload players, start fundraising and get your ****ing in house in order" type thing. They were right to do so, we needed that wake-up call to get us within the SCP - it's taken a massive effort from members/fans to get us over the line... hence the massive reduction in our wage bill for next season so we don't have a repeat performance.

[LukeO]

So. Any opinions on this?

No, I don't believe any player is being paid as a barman/fundraiser. I don't know enough about the youth section of the club to know if any of the players are involved in the coaching end of it, but I'm almost certain that they aren't.

[HulaHoop]

2) Schoolboy expenses - see post from Bohs' former Youth Director http://www.thebohs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=216864#216864



Without even getting into how it could possibly cost 3600 per week for DCU's training facilities let's just take the former Bohs youth director's most pertinent sentence
However,the overall "spend" figure of circa 130k,seen circa 110k in income come back in and break it down into plain English.

Bohs spent €130k on the schoolboy teams in 2008 (remember this doesn't count as wages as part of the 65% rule)

As per the former Bohs youth director €110k of this €130k somehow came back into the club as "income"

This €110k does count as income of which 65% could be spent on player wages.

Just to reiterate Bohs spent 130k on youth teams that doesn't count as wages however they somehow recovered 110k of this as income that did count towards the SCP.

There it is in black and white, it's in the accounts and the bohs youth director posted it on their board. How much clearer does it have to be that they are cooking the books?

[LukeO]

You're totally trying to twist what he was trying to say, but you already know that.

He was clearly trying to make the point that the 130k figure was not the net loss, but that the loss was 20k because the schoolboy section of the club raised 110k (through its own sponsorship, fundraising etc.).

He mightn't have expressed it very well and did not explain how it raised 110k (as he said in his post, it was explained to members at the agm), but you know damn well that he did not mean that 110k from the 130k spent went back into the club... How the **** do you think we would manage that? Give the coaches 110k to divvy up among the kids and tell them to spend it on forecast coupons? :rolleyes: Spare me.

He also says the youth section compiled its own set of accounts, so I would imagine Bohs will be only too happy to present them to Padraig Smith to show that everything is above board.

[dcfcsteve]

This forum generates a lot of heat discussing reasons why people despise the LoI. I'd put this sort of cynical blazer manoeuvre as top of the list, before quality of football, stadium facilities, and all of the other factors trotted out.

Pat Fenlon coud doubtless tell you a lot about cycnical blazer moves from his days as a Shelbourne Manager....

[incident]

Without even getting into how it could possibly cost 3600 per week for DCU's training facilities let's just take the former Bohs youth director's most pertinent sentence and break it down into plain English.

Bohs spent €130k on the schoolboy teams in 2008 (remember this doesn't count as wages as part of the 65% rule)

As per the former Bohs youth director €110k of this €130k somehow came back into the club as "income"

This €110k does count as income of which 65% could be spent on player wages.

Just to reiterate Bohs spent 130k on youth teams that doesn't count as wages however they somehow recovered 110k of this as income that did count towards the SCP.

There it is in black and white, it's in the accounts and the bohs youth director posted it on their board. How much clearer does it have to be that they are cooking the books?
So you've taken a simple statement that the Youth section cost 130k to run, and also brought in 110k in income, and somehow concluded that it proves that Bohs are cooking the books? Unbelieveable.

As for the other point - Yes, as far as I know money spent in most areas doesn't count towards the SCP whereas all Income does. That's not against the rules, it's not even a dodgy area.

Bohs have been guilty of irresponsible spending for sure, nobody can deny that. There's a genuine danger that it catches up with them in the future if it's not addressed properly - something they do actively seem to be trying to do especially over the last 6 months or so.

That's why it's rather unfortunate that Rovers have chosen to act in this manner. I just can't get my head around the fact that there's someone in the Rovers organisation that has so little self respect that they could bring themselves author and send this letter.

[Macy]

If there's nothing to it, why are the Bohs fans getting their knickers in such a twist? Even if there is something to it, does anyone expect the FAI to act? tbh, the most telling part is that, to me anyway, it looks like bohs fans are actually bricking it...

[theneutral]

Couldnt agree more with that last post.

Also how ironic is it that Bohs fans are making a big song and dance about whistle blowing and bitterness when not very long ago they were doing there level best to have Shamrock Rovers reprimanded for alleged Racism, sending letters to SARI, demanding points deductions and ground closures and generally taking the moral high ground over unproven allegations (let us not forget that this was at a time when Bohs were second in the table and the very real possibility of not winning a league they had BUDGETED TO WIN was staring them in the face). Hypocrites!

I commend Shamrock Rovers for calling the FAI's bluff here, id even suggest that there is more than just Rovers behind it, probably a few more clubs, far more beneficial to the media to make it a Bohs V Rovers issue though!

[CMcC]

So you don't think a detailed breakdown of your accounts over 4 years serves as evidence?

Why are you under transfer embargo again?



Are you suggesting this evidence was doctored too? :confused:



Agreed on both points, but giving the FAI a little nudge in the right direction is allowed...:D

No and I dont think anyone does either - other than those who so so desperately want it to be. If it raises questions so be it. Let the FAI bring it on. Evidence proves something - this doesnt get even close. The point Rovers fans were making re the tape of the monkey noises at Ndo was the very same (other then the idiot who said it was a doctored clip !!). Rovers sais it proved nothing. And after the investigation Rovers say it proved it didnt happen.

The transfer embargo was the kick up the hole by the FAI who were monitoiring the Bohs accounts and expenditure and a way for them to say they need to take serious emergency action if they are to get under the 65%. Bohs had to drastically cut expenditure in one foul swoop or massively increase income rapidly. Something I believe was done due to a huge effort from ordinary fans over the last number of months. Thats my (admittedly limited) understanding, maybe I am mistaken. I'm sure you can correct me.

At this point while we agree it should have been the FAI initiating this type of invetigation or questioning and certainly not through the national press I believe most Bohs fans I have spoken to are relaxed about it. Certainly not bricking it like another poster says. What will be will be. I have consistently said if rules are broken then Bohs have to take what would be coming. If not then nothing to see here people.

The knickers in a twist element always comes into it when its your biggest rivals on and off the pitch who are seen to be meddling in your affairs or stirring the crap - whatever the issue whether its on the field issues or off them. Dont be mistaken into thinking its anything else.

[sligored]

Primary school? Jaysus nice touch mate.

Right, thanks for re-posting your original post and completely ignoring my point. Now I'd like to restate my point that Rossi is on a part time contract.

Research: http://www.bohemians.ie/component/joomleague/?func=showPlayer&p=1&pid=19 Pay particular attention to the last line of the first paragraph, notice the word part time.

More research: http://www.sligoweekender.ie/news/story/?trs=mhcwsngbkf

It's commonly known Mark is on a part time contract, if he was receiving no financial reward for playing football he would be classed as an amateur, no? He is legally allowed to play football part time, not full time. Once again I ask what's the problem there?


No one is saying Mark does or doesn't get paid for a coaching role but to say he ONLY gets paid for a coaching role as a means of avoiding the 65% salary cap is pure and utter tripe. Possible slander?



But then again you probably know more about my club than I do...





From the indo
Shamrock Roovers have also asked for answers as to how the cost for Bohs' underage teams grew from €15,000 in '07 to €130,000 in '08

You are very naive lee-jo. Its a con hiding wages in coaching. If thats a method of avoiding the 65% and is found to be illegal , dont come on here crying about bitter shamrock rovers fans.

[osarusan]

I commend Shamrock Rovers for calling the FAI's bluff here, id even suggest that there is more than just Rovers behind it, probably a few more clubs, far more beneficial to the media to make it a Bohs V Rovers issue though!
There is no doubt that there are some questions that Bohs should be made answer, and some of their answers may be very interesting indeed. It's hard for me to imagine how they'll justify some of the figures.

That said, let's not pretend even for a second that this has been brought to the attention of the FAI and the media "for the good of the league".

[theneutral]

There is no doubt that there are some questions that Bohs should be made answer, and some of their answers may be very interesting indeed. It's hard for me to imagine how they'll justify some of the figures.

That said, let's not pretend even for a second that this has been brought to the attention of the FAI and the media "for the good of the league".

I dont doubt Rovers have selfish intentions at heart by raising this complaint but i think its fair to say that it will be to the benefit of the league (and Bohemians aswell) if Bohs are reeled in.

[EnglishSource]

That said, let's not pretend even for a second that this has been brought to the attention of the FAI and the media "for the good of the league".

It's obviously been brought to the attention of the FAI in the hope that they act, hopefully ensuring that in future Rovers can enter into contract negotiations on a fair footing with other clubs.

Certainly it's a selfish motive, but it's also clearly for the good of the league if fiddling is put an end to. Thats if any exists of course.

[LukeO]

From the indo
Shamrock Roovers have also asked for answers as to how the cost for Bohs' underage teams grew from €15,000 in '07 to €130,000 in '08

You are very naive lee-jo. Its a con hiding wages in coaching. If thats a method of avoiding the 65% and is found to be illegal , dont come on here crying about bitter shamrock rovers fans.

More shoddy moderating, allowing an unfounded lie to be presented as fact. Mark Rossiter has one contract - for playing.

As for the jump in figures, the state of our youth section pre-08 is explained in a link in my post on the previous page. The breakdown for schoolboy expenditure in 08 was roughly: 70k to Umbro (40k on training gear, 20k on match kits and 10k on equipment), 40k on Youth Development officer (which in the previous year was included under the technical staff heading) and 20k to DCU. The 110k income from the schoolboys section comes from subs, kids paying for kit, separate shirt sponsorship, summer soccer camps, UEFA grant etc. As far as I know the income side is not filed under a specific schoolboy section heading (instead sucked into different appropriate income headings) but there are schoolboy section-specific accounts which I'm sure will be made available to the FAI.


If there's nothing to it, why are the Bohs fans getting their knickers in such a twist? Even if there is something to it, does anyone expect the FAI to act? tbh, the most telling part is that, to me anyway, it looks like bohs fans are actually bricking it...

Not getting my knickers in a twist, I've explained to the best of my ability all the unfounded allegations thrown at the club (here: http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=1283923&postcount=96 ). Why I bothered, I'm not so sure. I'm just very disappointed with Shamrock Rovers on this one. I respected the professionalism and hard work of their board, but this is just pettiness. Our accounts have been available (and on the Rovers message board!!) since February, if they really thought we had a case to answer, they would have brought our figures to the attention of the FAI then. I'm certainly not bricking it either, there is no case to answer.

[Mr A]

The next set of accounts from Bohs will be interesting :)

[pineapple stu]

You need to make a distinction between posts, and posters, being dismissed as bitter, and the move by Shamrock Rovers being condemned in those terms, which is a valid point of view, even if you disagree. I don't think individual posters here have been so accused.
It's one thing to say Rovers are bitter and at least explain why. It's thing to dismiss a post as bitter with no explanation. That's what's against the rules.


Also these accounts have been available online for months. If they really had such a problem why wait until now, unless its a last desperate measure to claim a league title in the boardroom after they bottled it on the pitch.
I imagine that, as the 65% rule is to be examined at the end of the season only, there ws no point raising the issues until now. The concern isn't necessarily over last year's accounts, but over the probability that this year's accounts will show the same thing.


are the moderators actually going to start moderating here?

You get an infraction for saying UCD have a small fanbase
No-one got any such infraction. Such twisting of the truth isn't surprising, unfortunately.

In general, though, what Dodge said. Bohs fans are digging a hole for themselves, to be honest. It's a perfectly valid thread based on a newspaper article, and it's not going to be closed just because Bohs fans don't like it. I think Bohs fans are coming out of this particularly badly, tbh. The questions being posed are perfectly reasonable, and BohDiddley/Charlie Haughey's post in the first page sums up the Bohs fans' responses to date.

I think it's interesting that fans of every club bar Bohs to have posted on the thread are in broad agreement with what has been done (even if it may be unfortunate that it's Rovers who've done it).

I've binned those posts which could be summed up as "You're bitter".

[CMcC]

Hold on, this is quite important. Are you saying that a detailed breakdown of your clubs submitted accounts over 5 years and the spending patterns that lie within cannot be classed as 'evidence'?

To me you are saying one of two things:

1: The Bohs accounts are fiction and cannot be trusted.

2: You are clutching at straws to a spectacular degree. That feeds into what Macy is saying that the inane level of response from Bohs fans on here leads to further questions.

Ok BYCTWD let me put it this way. I have tried to engage with you (mainly) in a contructive manner on this.

1. I am saying no such thing! How you can get that out of what I say proves the blinkers are well and truely on here.

2. How do you make that one out?

I will reiterate my original point because I think its been lost on you. Let the FAI ask the questions. What will be after that will be. Is that not good enough for you?

Let me also say that I am not an forensic accountant. Querying how much a company pays for goods or services - because in your opinion its too high - doesnt, in my opinion provide evidence of a fraud happening. But I am not an accountant. Thats my rather simplistic view of things. You can choose to take that or not. What it may suggest is that management of the club hasnt been as prudent or penny wise as it should have been - but the dogs on the street have been saying that. The new board seem to be much more agressive in tackling this issue since they went in.

Either way it doesnt matter what you or I or other members of this forum think or choose to believe. What will ultimately matter is what the FAI think come the time for handing out licences. Now you can choose to accept their findings at that point, much like you chose to accept the findings of their racism investigation or you can cry fudge fudge fudge. But as a suggestion maybe we should let it play out as otherwise its all guesswork, accusation, mud slinging and allegations here.

I think mission accomplished for Rovers: They got their air time in a 'we are the only ones playing with a straight bat' kinda way and therefore I'm sure the FAI will be suitably rigorous in their dealings with Bohs re their licencing obligations.

[wexfordned]

It's obviously been brought to the attention of the FAI in the hope that they act, hopefully ensuring that in future Rovers can enter into contract negotiations on a fair footing with other clubs.

Certainly it's a selfish motive, but it's also clearly for the good of the league if fiddling is put an end to. Thats if any exists of course.

This thread is turning into a farce.

There are several bohs members who are accountants who questioned the schoolboy figures. Members were given a print out with exactly were all the money went.

Apart from trying to win the title in such a bitter way I wonder is this appeal based on the fact Rovers approached out of contract bohs players to sign for them, but they all turned them down to stay at Bohs.

[kd16]

Let me also say that I am not an forensic accountant. Querying how much a company pays for goods or services - because in your opinion its too high - doesnt, in my opinion provide evidence of a fraud happening. But I am not an accountant. Thats my rather simplistic view of things. You can choose to take that or not. What it may suggest is that management of the club hasnt been as prudent or penny wise as it should have been - but the dogs on the street have been saying that. The new board seem to be much more agressive in tackling this issue since they went in.

15,000 to 130,000 in the space of a year down to a lack of prudence? Don't fool yourself. Presumably the issue will be tackled though and so Bohs will save 115,000 on that alone this year :rolleyes:

Rovers are bitter, and Bohs have done wrong. Two things thatI don't think either can deny, no matter how hard they try.

[LukeO]

It's not going to be closed just because Bohs fans don't like it.

I don't think anyone is asking you to close it, but some moderation would not go amiss. How you can allow unfounded posts claiming that Mark Rossiter is paid as a coach/barman/ballboy stay up is beyond me. He is paid as a player - end of.



I think Bohs fans are coming out of this particularly badly, tbh. The questions being posed are perfectly reasonable, and BohDiddley/Charlie Haughey's post in the first page sums up the Bohs fans' responses to date.


I've responded to the allegations in as simple a way as possible, in a way that the keyboard warriors here might actually be able to understand.


No-one got any such infraction. Such twisting of the truth isn't surprising, unfortunately.


Yes they did, BohsPartisan got an infraction for this:
"John83 - that's a ridiculous implication to take from what I said. Its the fact the Gardaí treat fans like cattle that's the problem. I'm aware you won't have that problem at UCD seeing as there are so few of you so it would be hard to understand." In short, for saying that UCD have a small fanbase.

[LukeO]

15,000 to 130,000 in the space of a year down to a lack of prudence? Don't fool yourself. Presumably the issue will be tackled though and so Bohs will save 115,000 on that alone this year :rolleyes:


Basic breakdown of 130k here http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=1284028&postcount=109 . A more detailed version will be available to FAI (not to a Foot.ie trial by keyboard warriors, though) if they have not seen it already, that is.

[theneutral]

Bohs claims to have spent so much on schoolboy kit seem a bit weird considering Umbro witheld the new Bohs away kit as a result of Bohs not having paid them!

Thread hardly a farce Wexfordned, plenty of valid points being raised, i think Pineapple Stu summed it up quite well tbh.

[LukeO]

Hold on, numerous Bohs fans have referred to his coaching contract to get around the insurance issue....

Yes and they too are basing it on rumour that has been flying around since he joined Bohs. I'll repeat: Mark Rossiter has one contract - for playing.

[CMcC]

15,000 to 130,000 in the space of a year down to a lack of prudence? Don't fool yourself. Presumably the issue will be tackled though and so Bohs will save 115,000 on that alone this year :rolleyes:

Rovers are bitter, and Bohs have done wrong. Two things thatI don't think either can deny, no matter how hard they try.

I never said that increase was down to a lack of financial prudence. I said its a well known fact that Bohs have not been prudernt in general when they should have. I'm sure this will be explained to the FAI by Bohs. I believe a post somewhere up the thread also covers this off.