Rovers make official complaint to FAI about Bohs spending practices

[blackholesun]

"Conway accepted the schoolboys outlay was steep but said the club forked out 60,000 in 2008 on kitting out teams"

If the net cost to Bohs of running the schoolboys was only 20K, then why is he admitting the "outlay was steep"?

Did Bohs declare the 110K raised by the schoolboys section in their main accounts as income alongside 130K spent in the area as expenses.

Or did they just declare the net 20K subsidy to the schoolboys as an expense?

If any club had an 110K extra income on the books would entitle them to spend an extra 65% of 110K = 71K on first team players wages and in effect help bypass the spirit of the 65% rule!

bhs

[wexfordned]

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.

There is no point in using logic in your arguments with all the rumours & bulls**t been thrown around (Unmoderated I might add!).

As previous posters said Rovers have used the media for a bit of PR to show themselves as an example to everyone & get a dig at their rivals Bohs.

[LukeO]

Did Bohs declare the 110K raised by the schoolboys section in their main accounts as income alongside 130K spent in the area as expenses.

Or did they just declare the net 20K subsidy to the schoolboys as an expense?

If any club had an 110K extra income on the books would entitle them to spend an extra 65% of 110K = 71K on first team players wages and in effect help bypass the spirit of the 65% rule!

bhs

I've already said the 110k was included in other headings that weren't specific to the schoolboys section but that separate accounts specific to the schoolboys section are available to the FAI if they have any query in relation to its income/expenditure.

Bypass the spirit of the 65% rule? :confused: ALL income counts towards the 65% rule.

[Macy]

As previous posters said Rovers have used the media for a bit of PR to show themselves as an example to everyone & get a dig at their rivals Bohs.
Yeah, and Bohs tried to stir up a nice racism story on Rovers looking for points deduction/matches behind closed doors. Ye are as bad as each other.

Nothing will happen to bohs anyway, the only hope is that the FAI tighten the 65% rule so much that this accusation can't be levelled anyway. That's no doubt a forlorn hope, but still.

[LukeO]

Why should I believe you over other Bohs fans? Seriously?

Don't then. :confused:

[OneRedArmy]

The thread will go round in circles until the FAI come out and say something definitive.

To do that, they will have to prove that Bohs went beyond breaking the spirit of the legislation, and actually broke the rules. This will be difficult, but not impossible.

I've no problem with Rovers dragging it into public view, as the worst case scenario is that the rules around application of the cap gets tightened up going forward.

[LukeO]

I'm not particularly bothered by the Rossiter allegation as I know it to be untrue but it just shows the double standards in how things are moderated here. It's a serious allegation which effectively accuses Bohs and Mark Rossiter of fraud, all based on unfounded rumours. If Bohs/Rossiter were that way inclined, they could easily sue Foot.ie for allowing such allegations appear and, worse, for not taking them down.

Bahhhh...

[gufct]

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.


Who said Rovers Leaked it Philip Quinn is a lifelong Bohs Fan and I wouldnt put it past the Bohs Board or Certain Members from Leaking this to try and make Rovers look the Villians in this.

[sligored]

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.



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.


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...




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

I certainly dont want to slander mark rossiter but i am getting very mixed responses here. Does anyone know if he has a contract for coaching with bohemians football club?

Would it not be great if Sligo employed chris turner and raf cretaro as coaches for the coming season and then we could really make our club successful but in time bankrupt?

Not saying that bohs would do something like that

[Buile Shuibhne]

A small piece in today's Irish Mail saying that Bohs officials attended a meeting with the FAI on Wednesday night in Abbottstown and linking it with the story on Rovers raising the issue of Bohs accounts.


Maybe the FAI are looking into it?

[Bluebeard]

The thread will go round in circles until the FAI come out and say something definitive.

In that case, Ladies and Genltemen, I give you the future of the thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbRMj4UgjQk).

[LukeO]

I certainly dont want to slander mark rossiter but i am getting very mixed responses here. Does anyone know if he has a contract for coaching with bohemians football club?

He doesn't. Whether you choose to believe me is up to you.

[kd16]

Absolutely love this thread, the indignation of Bohs fans is hilarious. All the more so when you think back to the mock outrage, feigned hysteria and their mass campaign to have Rovers punished (fined, docked points, kicked out of Tallaght, behind closed doors, relegated, etc etc) for alledged racism.

I do see where they're coming from claiming that this stems from Rovers bitterness, but when you consider the above, its more enjoyable to laugh at them than side with them.

To me, its blatantly obvious there is something amiss with the Bohs figures. Their fans posting here would be better off saying nothing, as they're coming off worse by a mile.

I don't like the idea of clubs squealing on eachother but if the means justifies the end, then so be it.

[BohDiddley]

I think whoever said the thread is chasing its tail had it right. Shamrock have had their spiteful day and no racism-minimising equivalence with the SARI-endorsed complaint is going to change that.

I also agree that Bohs fans are on a hiding to nothing trying to reason with a baying mob when unsubstantiated allegations are tolerated. (Sorry Luke. I know you've been playing a blinder ;).)

Where we should have discussion, we now have farce. It's up to the FAI now to give the penalty or else card the diver.

[Leejo]

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...

Erm, no. To me it's all about defending the reputation of my club who have had crazy accusations accused of them. I look forward to an honest apology to all those who have said that Bohs have cheated and cooked the books.


I certainly dont want to slander mark rossiter but i am getting very mixed responses here. Does anyone know if he has a contract for coaching with bohemians football club?

How are you getting mixed responses? I refuted your ridiculous claims that he ONLY gets paid as a coach and told you for a fact that he is on a part time contract and that I genuinely didn't know if he is contracted as a coach as well as a player. Since then Lukeo has come out and said he has one contract - as a player and I'd be very inclined to believe him, he'd be in a better position to answer than me and he'd be very much a man in the know.

[Leejo]

Nice try on getting the thread closed. The 'allegation' came from other Bohs fans. You are asking the mods to make a call on one Fact! over another Fact! from the same supporters.

If you can clarify one way or the other, please do.

Allegation http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=1283731&postcount=80. That's funny, I always thought Sligored was a Sligo Rovers fan. Must be his name and avater that threw me though.

Show me a post where a Bohs fan says in simple terms Mark Rossiter get's paid as a coach not a player.

Edit - Before you go ahead and point the finger at me, my post here http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=1283755&postcount=81 does not say he is only paid as a coach not a player. It says he might be paid as a coach AND a player, it was a rumour I heard and chose to neither ignore nor deny it. It has since been brought to my attention by someone who would know (not Lukeo) that he has one contract - as a player.

[sligoman]

He is paid big money for coaching instead of wages- another way of avoiding the 65% cap.
I certainly dont want to slander mark rossiter but i am getting very mixed responses here. Does anyone know if he has a contract for coaching with bohemians football club?So you posted saying he's getting paid as a coach as if it was fact and now you're asking does anyone know if he has a coaching contract?

So obviously you're just guessing then?

[BohDiddley]

So you posted saying he's getting paid as a coach as if it was fact and now you're asking does anyone know if he has a coaching contract?
It works for Shamrock. Just make the allegation. Mud will stick.

[pineapple stu]

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.
Fair enough on the Mark Rossiter point. I'm not around mostentimes this weekend so don't have time to go through the thread in full detail. You should know by now to report any post with which you have a problem rather than whine in thread, where it'll get missed.

However, while the questions are valid in general, any more speculation on whether Mark Rossiter is paid for coaching or playing or running the bar or whatever will be deleted unless it's backed up. I trust that's a fair compromise.


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.
Nope, he got an infraction for dismissing John83's post purely because he was a UCD fan, which is against the rules. Perhaps you should read up on them.


It worked for Shamrock. Just make the allegation.
What allegation have Rovers made?

[LukeO]

Nice try on getting the thread closed.

I'm not trying to get the thread closed by any stretch of the imagination. All I asked for was for some moderation. Allegations should not be allowed to be presented as fact.

[BohDiddley]

What allegation have Rovers made?

Sorry. Semantics malfunction.

'Highlight a number of areas of concern (http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=1283268&postcount=2)'. Mud will stick.

They haven't even got the grace to come out and make the allegation.

[BohDiddley]

Rovers have just asked some questions.
Then why does the story, which emanates from Tallaght, say they've made an official complaint?

[EnglishSource]

Then why does the story, which emanates from Tallaght, say they've made an official complaint?

Emanates from Tallaght?

Comical Gerry is the only one quoted in the story.

[marinobohs]

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.

So the tallaght renting boys want accounts checked back to 2005 ? grand idea but why stop there, a year or two further and perhaps we can identify the club that

(1) misappropriated government grants
(2) walked away from its debts without sanction (YET)
(3) knowingly submitted fraudulent accounts to the licencing committee but retained a licence (bet derry would settle for 8 pt deduction)
The hypocracy of that small minded bitter club knows no bounds. Funny how they dont question clubs (like themselves) that have walked away from money owed to players yet complain about clubs that pay.

Great to see that looking for handouts still remains the only policy open South Dublin County councils tenants.

[theneutral]

Marino Bohs do you not see the irony in your bitter post calling Shamrock Rovers bitter?

I think everything has been said on this to be honest, its now in the hands of the FAI to deal with, If Bohs have done anything worng, theyll be reprimanded im sure, likewise if there in the clear then theyll be fine.

[pineapple stu]

marinobohs - don't go dragging the thread off topic. What Rovers' previous board did is of no relevance now.

(And I still find it amusing that, five pages after BYCTWD mentioned it, Bohs fans are still countering criticism of the club by comparing it to what Maguire did at Rovers)

[Tenderloins]

We are going on a newspaper article in the Mail.
I think its more than possible that Rovers (and possibly other clubs) made other allegations regarding Bohs finances to the FAI aside from the specific ones mentioned in the article and that the Mail decided against printing them.

[marinobohs]

Marino Bohs do you not see the irony in your bitter post calling Shamrock Rovers bitter?

I think everything has been said on this to be honest, its now in the hands of the FAI to deal with, If Bohs have done anything worng, theyll be reprimanded im sure, likewise if there in the clear then theyll be fine.

Not so much bitter as true. when SRFC had their "troubles" they got away with murder due to the smypathy shown by other clubs. To now be throwing mud about other clubs is pretty rich (something rare in LOI circles :)). The timing of the complaint is especially galling and reeks of sour grapes at how Bohs beat them in the title race.

I deliberately avoided responding to the allegations as I agree it is a matter for the FAI as to compliance with the 65% rule. Lets hope they are as dilligent on this as they were in dealing with complaints against SRFC :rolleyes:

[marinobohs]

marinobohs - don't go dragging the thread off topic. What Rovers' previous board did is of no relevance now.

(And I still find it amusing that, five pages after BYCTWD mentioned it, Bohs fans are still countering criticism of the club by comparing it to what Maguire did at Rovers)

so it is OK to question bohs finances back to 2005 but not question what SRFC did historically ? if you cannot see the hypocracy of that aurgument you should consider a season ticket at Tallaght next year.

if SRFC are not responsible for what happened before 2005 can they please stop claiming all the throphys won before that ? it really is one or the other.

As stated in previous post I am not addressing the issues simply commenting on the source of the complaint (hope that explains it for you).

[OneRedArmy]

I deliberately avoided responding to the allegations as I agree it is a matter for the FAI as to compliance with the 65% rule.So the responsibility for compliance with the rulebook lies with the person responsible for setting and enforcing the rules, not the people who the rules apply to?

Computer says noooooooooo.

[Dalymountrower]

BYCTWD Quote:
. This thread is about Bohs 1,900% increase in off the pitch spending with no clear increase in activity around the time of the wage cap. You can try and divert till the cows come home, but the salient fact is that aside from LukeO, not one Bohs fan has made any effort to address these issues.

LukeO dealt with the points made, comprehensively and factually. Do you want Bohs fans to respond with a different set of facts that fits in with your initial premise that we have something to hide??? It would be bit too much to hope that we are as devious and Machiavellian as many Posters here seem to think...back handed compliment I suppose.
BYCNTWD I think its hilarious to witness the zealousness of the converts to Fiscal Rectitude from Tallaght. If there one thing that is sure to galvanise Bohs fans is a move against us prompted by the former bankrupts. Rovers challenging us for the title or winning by us defaulting on the SCP was enough to launch up to a dozen heavily supported fundraisers from last July which has comfortaby steered us to come within the 65%. This latest nonsense will do the same..... so keep stirring that pot Hoops:D

[marinobohs]

So the responsibility for compliance with the rulebook lies with the person responsible for setting and enforcing the rules, not the people who the rules apply to?

Computer says noooooooooo.

yep, got me, ENFORCEMENT of the 65% rule is responsibility of the FAI (but I'm sure you know that ;))

[CharlesThompson]

Couple of points:

I will love it, just love it when Bohs have been cleared of all these unfortunate allegations (for I am confident that is what they are).

Any indignation or defensive procrastinations by Bohs supporters here are simply as a result of the incredible ferocity of the vast majority of posters baying for blood. Guilty we are apparently before we prove our innocence.

I must say that when I initially read the figures as outlined in the D.M. my eyebrows were raised. However on closer inspection (if any of you actually bothered to inspect closer than the article) there are any number of valid reasons for the apparent increases as outlined. And indeed explanations outlined by board members on the Bohs M.B. and kindly directed by LukeO within this thread. Although it would appear that they have been ignored by the Agendista who it would appear are already sharpening their knives for the bloodbath.

In fact as it's already been alluded to in this thread, if Bohs are successful in proving their innocence, it seems that the minds of a fair few posters in here have already made their minds up that the FAI have 'fudged' their responsibilities. Laughable in the extreme. Shameful in the other extreme.

It has also been questioned ad infinitum early in this thread as to why we had a transfer embargo placed upon us during the season - almost to the degree that because we were then the default position would remain and we would thus remain in contempt of the law. The simple answer here is that we had the embargo placed on the club because we were sailing above the agreed template for wages at that point. This was found by the FAI (not Shams or anybody else) because of the audit system that every other club had to submit the same information for. Thanks to this system, we, the members and supporters were in a positon to take measures to minimize our risk and take affirmative action with the target of bringing the club back under the threshold and therefore keep us within the rules. I wonder is this the splinter that sticks in the craw?

Question, has it not passed the small brains that post here that having found ourselves in the position to have this embargo placed upon us that a tremendous amount of work was carried out in fundraising activity so as to bring the club back within the boundaries of the law? Fundraising that every club would love supporters and members to take a part in?

Let me pin my colours to the mast here. If Bohs are found to be guilty of wrongdoing then we will take it on the chin and deal with it.

Leaving aside the double standard moderation, what is hard to take reading through the pre schadenfruede bile on this thread is the contemptible, accusatory, holier than thou stance the usual suspects are taking on this issue.

People in glass houses and all that.

[marinobohs]

Finances from 05 to date.

Come on, you can do a lot better than that.

So the world started in 2005 ???? When are you guys going to decide if you are (A) Shamrock Rovers 1927 and all the baggage/ throphies that go with that OR (B) a new club set up in 2005 (almost as successful as Sporting Fingal) ?
My point is that Bohs accounts in previous years have been signed off by the FAI (like it or not). if you want to reopen them then you should be prepared to reopen the sins of your own club (whichever one it is).
Once again, I am not responding to individual points as most of them are so ridiculous as to not deserve a response. Happy to let the FAI do their job.

[BohDiddley]

What Rovers' previous board did is of no relevance now.

That's entirely a matter of opinion. The Shamrock non-allegations to which you give such credence refer to 2005 to 2008. The board of BFC as currently constituted is very different from the one that sat during that period.

Please square that in terms of the moderating warning you've issued, or are we on a level playing field here?

[CharlesThompson]

What exactly is this double standard moderation of which you are going on about?

The ones Pineapple Stu is trying to defend (absurdly IMO) in his response - #145 - I'm wondering now if you're picking and choosing which posts you are reading?

[topia]

Nope, he got an infraction for dismissing John83's post purely because he was a UCD fan, which is against the rules. Perhaps you should read up on them.



The rules need an overhaul if you can go round giving infractions because somebody says something you dont like to your mate. That was more a comment on the attendence of UCD matches hardly having problems with the guards rather than dismissing his opinion.

Im sure throughout this thread people have dismissed bohs fans opinions in this thread as them 'having their heads in the sand' is that not dismissing a fans opinion because of who they support? Did all these people get infractions???

Why is 2005 the starting point in all this?

Bohs did not expect rovers to be docked points over the racism incident they merely reported it surely it would have been disrespectful to ndo not to report it? You werent cleared of racism...insufficient evidence was the conclusion...for some reason.

Also TheNeutral you are the least neutral poster ever.

[CharlesThompson]

Last time I'll humour this, but Rover "got away with murder" as you put it, because it was clear that there was a sincere effort by the new owners / fans to clean up the club and ensure it never happened again.

Make me laugh why doncha! I suppose we all should be happy so that the paedophile priests that 'owned up' were right to accept their slap on the wrist and sent off to childcare facilities in other areas of the country because they admitted they were wrong.

[theneutral]

Call it what you want Topia, i dont support any team, go to matches when i can, will openly admit that oweing to experiences over the years that Bohs would be my least favourite club of the lot but still makes me a neutral!

Thread seems to be getting dragged off topic. ALso its bareing more than a striking resemblence to the Racism thread a few months back, except everybody has swapped shoes.

[CharlesThompson]

You mean the specific allegtation about a specific player that he has removed in accordance with site rules?

Is there some brain-numbing contagent seeping into the D7 water supply or something?

Contagent?

Removed or not, it didn't go down without a fight I think you'll agree.

Convenient of you all the same to take possibly the least important part of my post to dissect.

[CharlesThompson]

Are you seriously going to be crass and insensitive enough to compare Rovers to child abusing priests?

This is getting surreal now.

Now that you mention it...

[pineapple stu]

Re biased/unjust moderation.

Do any Bohs fans actually understand the concept of a change of ownership? Like, do you understand that Rovers fans opposed what their board did, and in fact raised queries with the FAI about them the same way Rovers have no raised issues over Bohs with the FAI?

Giving out to posters for dismissing Rovers' questions on the basis of what their fans fought against is not double standards; it's merely an attempt at saving Bohs fans' embarrassment by continually likening their current board to Maguire & Co.

Are Bohs fans so completely heads-in-the-sand that they can't see this simple connection?

[BohDiddley]

Call it what you want Topia, i dont support any team, go to matches when i can, will openly admit that oweing to experiences over the years that Bohs would be my least favourite club of the lot but still makes me a neutral!

Thread seems to be getting dragged off topic. ALso its bareing more than a striking resemblence to the Racism thread a few months back, except everybody has swapped shoes.

Everyone except you. IIRC, you were content to look the other way when racism was the issue, and you're content to use that issue as an equivalent scenario to some half-baked allegations on accounts.

For a 'neutral', whatever that's supposed to mean, you're also remarkably well-informed on and animated by things Bohemian.

[topia]

Because thats the last year their spending was 'normal'.



Well the complainant did suggest that they should. But the issue here is the Bohs fans getting all hot and bothered about allegations being made against them and how unfair it all is, whereas they had no problem whatsoever throwing mud at Rovers over what turned out to be nothing.

Shoe on other foot etc.

If anything it was disprespectful to make a complaint on Ndo's behalf - he obviously didn't feel that the alledged incident was worthy of complaint - if indeed it happened at all.


You mean the 1st year Rovers spending was 'normal' or something?
How could it possibly be disrespectful to make a complaint on Ndos behalf? and how do you know he didnt ask the club to make a complaint? If you seriously think that Bohs made the complaint in an attempt to have Rovers docked points and that no racism actually occurred you have issues.
You are not comparing like with like here and you know it. Also how exactly did it turn out to be 'nothing'? Because you werent charged?
There seems to be an awful lot of Rovers fans on here getting excited about this while claiming that Bohs fans are getting their knickers in a twist.

[SMorgan]

Fair play to Rovers for putting these questions to the FAI. It was obvious that there would be those that, for very obvious reasons, seek to present their genuine concerns as sour grapes. The LOI owes Rovers a big thank you for having the courage to openly say what other club dare not openly say.

[sonofstan]

Fair play to Rovers for putting these questions to the FAI. It was obvious that there would be those that, for very obvious reasons, seek to present their genuine concerns as sour grapes. The LOI owes Rovers a big thank you for having the courage to openly say what other club dare not openly say.

Excellent. Any drier and there'd be camels walking across it.

[LukeO]

The rules need an overhaul if you can go round giving infractions because somebody says something you dont like to your mate. That was more a comment on the attendence of UCD matches hardly having problems with the guards rather than dismissing his opinion.

Im sure throughout this thread people have dismissed bohs fans opinions in this thread as them 'having their heads in the sand' is that not dismissing a fans opinion because of who they support? Did all these people get infractions???
Q.E.D.

[passerrby]

I too am completely convinved that bohs will be cleared of any wrong doing by the fai.. however that will not be enough for fair minded people throughout the game

[Dodge]

Fair play to Rovers for putting these questions to the FAI. It was obvious that there would be those that, for very obvious reasons, seek to present their genuine concerns as sour grapes.

But it is sour grapes. Why wait until after the season is over if its for the good of the league?

I repeat though, that none of this negates the seriousness of the allegations, npr the onus on the FAI to onvestigate

[SkStu]

marinobohs - don't go dragging the thread off topic. What Rovers' previous board did is of no relevance now.

(And I still find it amusing that, five pages after BYCTWD mentioned it, Bohs fans are still countering criticism of the club by comparing it to what Maguire did at Rovers)

so you obviously dont know what the word "compare" means. :rolleyes:


Must have missed you saying the above on the Ndo thread.....

please see TG4 video. Rovers fans made monkey noises to Joseph Ndo.


Re biased/unjust moderation.

Do any Bohs fans actually understand the concept of a change of ownership? Like, do you understand that Rovers fans opposed what their board did, and in fact raised queries with the FAI about them the same way Rovers have no raised issues over Bohs with the FAI?

Giving out to posters for dismissing Rovers' questions on the basis of what their fans fought against is not double standards; it's merely an attempt at saving Bohs fans' embarrassment by continually likening their current board to Maguire & Co.

Are Bohs fans so completely heads-in-the-sand that they can't see this simple connection?

heres some double standards in moderation for you - youre saying that its fair to present questions based on a newspaper article, yet you are allowing things that were not mentioned in the newspaper article to be presented as fact by the keyboard warriors to be subject to "answering" from Bohs fans.

Trying to save Bohs fans from embarassment? Please - this is the sort of thread that gets you off. Seriously, you should be ashamed to call yourself a moderator.