Bohs SCP discussion

[SkStu]

i dont have time to go trawling through previous threads (well i do have the time, just not the inclination) to show you what you have said in the past - thats what got me so aggravated in the past. If you are changing your tune now to suit what you now believe, then thats fine. Just wanted to clarify.

[SkStu]

Im 32.

You claimed that Bohs would not get the transfer embargo lifted, that we would be docked points and relegated if we were lucky. You've changed that now. Problem?

[OneRedArmy]

This smacks of Shels all over again. Drawing down buckets of cash for operating expenses against a declining asset. Whatever about the short-term (SCP for 2010) the medium to longer term doesn't look rosy.

Yet another case of spectacularly inept LoI financial mismanagement.

[CharlesThompson]

Im 32.

You claimed that Bohs would not get the transfer embargo lifted, that we would be docked points and relegated if we were lucky. You've changed that now. Problem?

I don't know why you bother Stu. There's a fair number of posters on this MB waiting/willing/sniffing blood in the shadows of Dalymount Park for a long time. Funnily enough, most of them support clubs that have gone through their own "difficulties" in recent times.

I distinctly get the impression that these people spend nights with their hands down the front of their jocks, squeezing their eyes ever so tightly and hoping that the day Bohs get DONE is not too far away. It's the giddy excitement and tone of their posts and the immediate nature of their questioning of all things related to Bohs off the field matters that really shines through.

The fact that everything they don't understand (which is quite I lot I might add) about the inner workings of our club has to be explained off with allegations of underhandedness and conspiracies only serves to underline their want for Bohemians failure.

You and LukeO have explained more than they deserve explained to them. Yet they choose to ignore what is fact and counter with conspiracy and conjecture. Leave them to it I say.

[RoversHead]

How long will it take whoever buys Dalymount to find land ,get planning,deal with objections and build a ground?How will Bohs finance their existance till then?Will NAMA just write off the money that the shoebox king gave Bohs?If you can answer these questions then you can lay claim to understanding the inner workings of your club but control of your own destiny I think not.

[marinobohs]

](1)[/B]How long will it take whoever buys Dalymount to find land ,get planning,deal with objections and build a ground?(2)How will Bohs finance their existance till then?(3)Will NAMA just write off the money that the shoebox king gave Bohs?If you can answer these questions then you can lay claim to understanding the inner workings of your club but control of your own destiny I think not.

(1)As long as it takes (a matter for developer as Bohs not seeking to build). (2)The same way all other clubs will.(3) AGAIN Bohs are not in breach of contract so why would Danninger/NAMA be owed money ?, According to most on here Danninger will be the ones to breach contract, Are you really so stupid to believe they could claim money from Bohs for THEM breaching contract ?
There now, questions answered. Incidentally Assets V Liabilities, Bohs are far healthier finanacially than most clubs (including the much lauded Shams)

[pineapple stu]

(2)The same way all other clubs will[B].
You will finance yourselves the same way all other clubs will? Now that's a lie. To date, you've been financing yourselves by drawing down from Liam Carroll (something I think you'll agree not all clubs are doing) and racking up a massive loan balance (so far in excess of other clubs that it doesn't even compare). Unless that's going to change radically (and the signings announced show no sign that it will), Bohs are not financing themselves the same way other clubs are.


Incidentally Assets V Liabilities, Bohs are far healthier finanacially than most clubs
That's irrelevant though. Cash is king, and you're far poorer than all other clubs in that regard. Dalymount only comes into the equation if you do something silly like sell your ground to pay wages.


This smacks of Shels all over again.
It really does. And you forgot to mention the fans saying no-one outside the club really knows what's going on, and all our suppositions are wrong and the board know exactly what they're doing and there's a plan in place. Sounds exactly like Shels fans in 2006.

[marinobohs]

You will finance yourselves the same way all other clubs will? Now that's a lie. To date, you've been financing yourselves by drawing down from Liam Carroll (something I think you'll agree not all clubs are doing) and racking up a massive loan balance (so far in excess of other clubs that it doesn't even compare). Unless that's going to change radically (and the signings announced show no sign that it will), Bohs are not financing themselves the same way other clubs are.


That's irrelevant though. Cash is king, and you're far poorer than all other clubs in that regard. Dalymount only comes into the equation if you do something silly like sell your ground to pay wages.

.

Interesting that you posted so frequently in the past concerning drawing a line under what other clubs did "in the past" but apply different criteria here (the use of "will" indicates going forward).
bohs do not make the rules regarding eligable expenditure simply have to (hopefully) work within them. We do not, for example, have a College supplying us with facilities/scholorships either - each club has pro's and con's but again you distinguish between Bohs "and other clubs" as if everyone else is the same. Strange.

To ignore a major asset in calculating the value of any business enterprise shows ignorance of any basic accounting procedures. Even without selling the asset is useful as leverage and in providing a guarantee for creditors (for example) - club less likely to disappear.

[pineapple stu]

I indicated that I don't see how Bohs are going to show any major change between the recent past and the immediate future. If it's obvious that there is a major change, then your point is valid. But that's not the case here. As far as can be seen, Bohs intend to keep going the way they have been.

We don't have scholarships supplied to us; the club has to pay for them.

And LOL at you giving me (a qualified accountant) an accountancy lecture. It is not good practice use an asset vital to your existence to run up a debt of E4m. All having the ground means you're unlikely to go under, but it means you'll have to pay off all your debts when the time comes, by which stage you'll be homeless and have a much reduced budget in future. Just like Shels.

[marinobohs]

I indicated that I don't see how Bohs are going to show any major change between the recent past and the immediate future. If it's obvious that there is a major change, then your point is valid. But that's not the case here. As far as can be seen, Bohs intend to keep going the way they have been.

We don't have scholarships supplied to us; the club has to pay for them.

And LOL at you giving me (a qualified accountant) an accountancy lecture. It is not good practice use an asset vital to your existence to run up a debt of E4m.

Is it usual that a major asset would be ignored (or classed irrelevant) in valuing a business entity ?

Various Bohs contributors here have indicated that the club has changed its approach to expenditure on wages going forward. sorry but will not put figures in such a public demain so you will just have to wait and see ;)

[pineapple stu]

What's business valuation got to do with anything? We're looking at viability. And in that case, yes, you should ignore anything that it would be downright stupid to sell. In fact, you should be looking more at your current ratio, which explicitly excludes fixed assets.

[CMcC]

Linky. (http://www.eleven-a-side.com/bohemians/news.asp?n=37829)

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

To be fair pineapple, all that article says is that the FAI havent even completed going through the accounts yet to come to their decision. It doesnt say anything more than that. People will take what they want out of it and they will - especially on this thread.

[osarusan]

And LOL at you giving me (a qualified accountant) an accountancy lecture.
LOL at you calling somebody's prediction for the future (however unlikely you think it is) a "lie".

[pineapple stu]

Touché!

Your phrasing is better alright. Although the future's not a perfect unknown.

[osarusan]

Although the future's not a perfect unknown.Agreed, and I'd share your concerns that visible signs don't seem to suggest much change.

The fact that the embargo hasn't been lifted after the recommendations to the licencing committee on Dec 22nd may not be as significant as som are making out - the normal procedure for acting on recommendations may still be taking place - under FAI governance we've become accustomed to things taking a long time to be decided and become public knowledge. In my opinion the link does not suggest irregularities of cause for concern as a reason for any delay, rather just gives procedure.

Bohs fans claim that by hard work they've scraped under the 65%, and to some that is a fanciful claim. But I don't think we can do anything except wait and see.

[marinobohs]

Agreed, and I'd share your concerns that visible signs don't seem to suggest much change.

The fact that the embargo hasn't been lifted after the recommendations to the licencing committee on Dec 22nd may not be as significant as som are making out - the normal procedure for acting on recommendations may still be taking place - under FAI governance we've become accustomed to things taking a long time to be decided and become public knowledge. In my opinion the link does not suggest irregularities of cause for concern as a reason for any delay, rather just gives procedure.

Bohs fans claim that by hard work they've scraped under the 65%, and to some that is a fanciful claim. But I don't think we can do anything except wait and see.

Yep, technically no club budgets have been agreed todate. Belief at Bohs is that we did comply with the 65% rule for 2009 and there has been no indication that this is not valid, if other people know different then I will be happy to stand corrected on presentation of facts (as opposed to speculation). I understand that the next week should see an acceptance or rejection of the recommendations (by the FAI) so we should FINALLY know one way or the other.

[pineapple stu]

The fact that the embargo hasn't been lifted after the recommendations to the licencing committee on Dec 22nd may not be as significant as som are making out
I think - to get back on topic - what it suggests is the following -

> Bohs were put under an embargo in May or June because of overspending as revealed in their monthly management accounts. Presumably it was a acse of the FAI saw the April accounts towards the end of May, saw they were over 65% and immediately slapped on an embargo.
> The embargo hasn't been lifted, which means that at no stage since have they come back under 65%
> Presumably the November accounts were what was submitted on 22 December. The only things in there which will really get Bohs under 65% are the prize money for winning the league and the E1m from the Albion deal. The FAI may, I suppose, also consider whether transfer fees agreed in November (Murphy for example, or was he a free?) but not recieved till Jan can count.
> Presumably again, if they are over the 65%, the FAI will keep the transfer embargo in place until they come back under the 65%, which could only be in March, having not signed any of the players they currently have agreements with. If they make it under 65%, all the players sign and off they go.
> Bohs may also cut costs next year, and fair play if they do, but it's not going to affect the 2009 figures.

[Dalymountrower]

I think - to get back on topic - what it suggests is the following -

> The only things in there which will really get Bohs under 65% are the prize money for winning the league and the E1m from the Albion deal. .

To use your own vernacular, "thats a lie".

[pineapple stu]

Do expand, genuinely.

If Bohs were over the 65% in October (as they seem to have been), what will bring them under the 65% in November?

[osarusan]

Without knowing how much they were over the 65% SCP it is difficult to speculate as to what income needs to be generated in order to bring them under it.

[OneRedArmy]

Do expand, genuinely.

If Bohs were over the 65% in October (as they seem to have been), what will bring them under the 65% in November?A circular transaction?:cool:

[RoversHead]

I dont think it at all stupid that Danninger might claim that your undisclosed agreement with Albion prevented them closing the deal and making x millions of euro thus contributing to Danningers current predicament Marino do you ?How this could play out is still unknown and could mean further court visits for you lot so Im not sure your board are in controll of your future at all but what would be of major concern is the complete reluctance to cut your cloth.

[SkStu]

if thats really what you think is going to happen with Danninger then youre even more deluded than i thought.

If youre on a wind up... try harder.

[RoversHead]

your prefered option is still to sell your ground to a bankrupt company ,while going further into debt in the meantime to chase prize money at the end of another season to cover up more cheating on the 65% cap.and Im the deluded one?nobody knows how Danningers affairs will be dealt with but your board are borrowing on the strenght of a chance that it might work out in your favour.

[SkStu]

no theyre not. Do some research (e.g. read this thread).

[Leejo]

Do expand, genuinely.

If Bohs were over the 65% in October (as they seem to have been), what will bring them under the 65% in November?

This place could do with a serious amount of common sense, would get rid of 95% of the posts on here.

Not sure why I'm bothering but just for a start have a look at all the fundraising money being handed over to the club in one lump sum, look at the prize money for winning the league.

Stu, we were under the SCP in November, like it or not we know a lot more about the ins and outs of our club than you or anyone else on here does. If there was any doubt from the Dalymount that we were over the SCP you'd have heard about it by now from some loud mouthed member, but we're not. Can this now be the end of it until an official announcement is made?

[Ezeikial]

Can this now be the end of it until an official announcement is made?

Surely you don't beleive that "an official announcement" is going to quieten things down?

I think it is fair to say that most interested observors have no doubt that Bohemians have, at a minimum, blatently disregarded the spirit of the SCP. Whether the FAI have the desire or the ability to apply sanctions is really what remains to be seen.

It seems to me that many, including the Bohs board, have concluded that they don't have the stomach for it.

[Doomofman]

Also it's the off-season.. We've nothing else to talk about :p

[Leejo]

I think it is fair to say that most interested observors have no doubt that Bohemians have, at a minimum, blatently disregarded the spirit of the SCP.

How?


*can of worms opened*

[de bowez]

By the fact that you are currently under embargo for breaching the SCP mid season and the main plank to you getting under it is a wash of funds with a property speculator.

Its impossible to breach the SCP midseason. Only the Star have claimed that the Albion losses are going to be used to get us under the 65%.

[MariborKev]

Its impossible to breach the SCP midseason. Only the Star have claimed that the Albion losses are going to be used to get us under the 65%.

Err,

No it ain't.

That why ourselves, you lot and a few others had transfer embargoes implemented mid season.

[de bowez]

Err,

No it ain't.

That why ourselves, you lot and a few others had transfer embargoes implemented mid season.

Nope, its because the FAI felt that if we continued at the rate we were going we would finish the season over it.

[Mr A]

I don't think any club that says mid season that they need European progression and a league title to get under 65% can with any credibility claim to be in compliance with the spirit of the rule.

[de bowez]

Do you honestly believe that? :rolleyes:

It's 2006 all over again, but this time its Bozo's who clearly haven't a clue whats going on in their club - but you are a members club ffs.

Not sure how its so hard to believe that the FAI knew that Bohs were in danger of breaching the SCP after going through the accounts?

[OneRedArmy]

Semantics.

At the start of the season each club prepares a monthly budget that must, on an aggregate basis, be in compliance with the SCP.

Clubs then submit monthly management accounts that are tracked against the budget.

I would imagine that at some point Bohs management accounts diverged wildly from their budget leading to a high risk that they would fail to meet the year-end SCP. Ergo the FAI took action to limit further costs being incurred that would further reduce the chances of the SCP being met (through transfers).

Whether or not they were in breach at points throughout the year is neither here nor there.

But without wanting to repeat myself too much, discussing the SCP in the context of Bohs is re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titantic. A bit like the Derry fans thinking the dual contract issue and all the smokescreens around that was important, when the club was sliding under in the background.

[marinobohs]

Surely you don't beleive that "an official announcement" is going to quieten things down?

I think it is fair to say that most interested observors have no doubt that Bohemians have, at a minimum, blatently disregarded the spirit of the SCP. Whether the FAI have the desire or the ability to apply sanctions is really what remains to be seen.

It seems to me that many, including the Bohs board, have concluded that they don't have the stomach for it.

So, if bohs are found to breach the rule it is because they are guilty but if they are found not to have broken the rule it is because the FAI are covering up the fact they are guilty ?

Typical of the stupid nonsense posted by some on this thread :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[pineapple stu]

Without knowing how much they were over the 65% SCP it is difficult to speculate as to what income needs to be generated in order to bring them under it.
True, of course. But in November, Bohs had no home games and presumably accrued some title-winning bonuses, which would make it even harder again to get under the 65% cap through any means other than prize money and the Albion money.

[RoversHead]

no theyre not. Do some research (e.g. read this thread).Fenlon had to go round D7 with a begging bowl to try and fund an overnight stay in derry at the end of last season ,prize money won was used in the mad scramble to bring you under 65% along with outstanding transfer money due.So if you want to believe that your Debt wont increase this season off you go.

[marinobohs]

Fenlon had to go round D7 with a begging bowl to try and fund an overnight stay in derry at the end of last season ,prize money won was used in the mad scramble to bring you under 65% along with outstanding transfer money due.So if you want to believe that your Debt wont increase this season off you go.

Yea, and we need to save for the Danninger court case ;)

[MariborKev]

Question for non-Bohs fans. Does anyone believe a word of what they are posting on here?


Yeah,

Some of posted by LukeO etc seems bang on.

[marinobohs]

Question for non-Bohs fans. Does anyone believe a word of what they are posting on here?

Convincing FAI will fortunately be easier than malcontent opposition supporters with a major chip on both shoulders, but keep up the good work ;)

[RoversHead]

Yea, and we need to save for the Danninger court case ;)No you need to save 4million in two years to pay a certain bank loan which means two yrs to sort out the sale of Dalymount which means another two years busting 65% to try and make the champions league .thats without servicing other debt,good luck with that.

[John83]

True, of course. But in November, Bohs had no home games and presumably accrued some title-winning bonuses, which would make it even harder again to get under the 65% cap through any means other than prize money and the Albion money.
You're kind of arguing in a vacuum here though, not knowing how far they were off. I expect them to meet the SCP, if only because if they hadn't, there'd have been a leak and an EGM by now. That doesn't mean that everything's suddenly dandy there, but in the absence of more information, repeating that you have your doubts is just provoking the Bohs fans.

[marinobohs]

No you need to save 4million in two years to pay a certain bank loan which means two yrs to sort out the sale of Dalymount which means another two years busting 65% to try and make the champions league .thats without servicing other debt,good luck with that.
or simply renegotiating the loan perhaps ? believe it or not this has been done before. whatever will they think of next !

[marinobohs]

So you admit that the accounts themselves won't work, and convincing will need to be done? ;)

No, the accounts will speak for themselves (good or bad) but lets be honest to some on here nothing would convince them ! we have already had one post that says if Bohs are inside the 65% rule that it just shows the FAI are not implementing it. Really no point in trying to persuade someone of that mindset.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Question for non-Bohs fans. Does anyone believe a word of what they are posting on here?


This SCP malarky with Bohs and the transfer embargo has gone on so long now, possibly even before a ball was kicked this season non-bohs fans like myself where banging on about it, but they are still here.
Do i believe bohs fans? Well not all of them but I must say that some have posted here who in previous times over the course of me being on this mb I have grown to respect thier opinion and take their comments more than others as being more closer to the truth irregardless of my own opinion.
If bohs have broken the 65% rule then i think we would of heard it by now as was poseted earlier is speculation that they have broken it is really just speculation and fanning the flames of a topic that has been probably in discussion since 2008.

If it does emerge that bohs have broken the 65% then its time to say "I told you so"

[OneRedArmy]

No, the accounts will speak for themselves (good or bad) They already have.

The revaluation of the carpark is probably already lined up as the comedy after dinner piece at the ICAI annual bash....

[passerrby]

Question for non-Bohs fans. Does anyone believe a word of what they are posting on here?

I believe that they believe it to be a honest account of there clubs situation but it appears to be an attempt at a stay of execution by the board.maybe im wrong but i think that this saga will have more twists than a roddy collins contract
the real worry is that all of bohs future is predicated on the successful sale of dalyier

[SkStu]

Fenlon had to go round D7 with a begging bowl to try and fund an overnight stay in derry at the end of last season ,prize money won was used in the mad scramble to bring you under 65% along with outstanding transfer money due.So if you want to believe that your Debt wont increase this season off you go.

thats a totally different point youre making now to the one i quoted. :rolleyes:

[MMVIII]

@BYCTWD.. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that. It gets a bit boring your obvious obsession with Bohs.

And for the record, I'm not licking up to Bohs fans. I dislike them too :)