Bohs SCP discussion [Archive] - Page 4

Ezeikial

07/01/2010, 10:03 PM

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:

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.

Do you really believe that the FAI's attitude will have absolutely no bearing on the outcome?

Undoubtedly Bohemians have (or will) present a case that portrays the club as being under the 65% rule.

Whether the FAI accept or reject that presentation may be influenced to a large extent by the level of desire within the FAI to implement sanctions, rather then whether Bohs have complied with both the letter and the spirit of the regulations.

Convincing FAI will fortunately be easier than malcontent opposition supporters

My guess is that you are right, and that the FAI are well disposed to being "convinced". I don't think that they have the bottle to do the right thing.

SkStu

07/01/2010, 10:11 PM

you've just proven MarinoBohs point Ezeikial. We and the FAI are in a no-win situation when it comes to this issue, not to mention when it comes to debating it on this forum.

Was it you who said that, if nothing else, we are against "the spirit" of the SCP? I mean, come on, what next?!

Ezeikial

07/01/2010, 10:23 PM

you've just proven MarinoBohs point Ezeikial.

If you are suggesting that MarinoBohs and I agree on this, thats really fantastic!!

We and the FAI are in a no-win situation when it comes to this issue, not to mention when it comes to debating it on this forum.

Agreed (thats two in a row!).

This "no-win" situation is directly due to Bohs flagrant disregard for the regulations and financial sanity (and as a result Bohs fans trying to defend the indefensible)

Was it you who said that, if nothing else, we are against "the spirit" of the SCP? I mean, come on, what next?!

Close (nearly a hatrick there) - my earlier post said:

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.

SkStu

07/01/2010, 10:30 PM

no im suggesting that you have proven his point.

we are in a no-win situation. Its clear what i meant. He cant argue with people who have their minds so firmly set against us. im presuming the two-in-a-row refers to our two leagues in a row.

with regards to nearly scoring a hatrick, i really have no idea what youre talking about.

marinobohs

08/01/2010, 11:09 AM

This "no-win" situation is directly due to Bohs flagrant disregard for the regulations and financial sanity (and as a result Bohs fans trying to defend the indefensible)

:

The "no win" scenario arises due to your incapacity to look at anything to do with Bohs with any sense of objectivity (as has been seen on a number of threads). If they are found guilty then it is OK but if they are found innocent then they are guilty anyway. What utter rubbish, but in keeping with your views on all things Bohs.
There is some excuse for fans showing bias in favour of their own club (we are all guilty) but your constant harping about Bohs is borderline scary.

marinobohs

08/01/2010, 12:59 PM

So do the bohs fans on here want to let us know if the money owed to Fenlon appears on this years accounts, or should we just wait until they are posted on the rovers forum to find out?
No, we have not seen either the contract or the final accounts (as we said). Unlike shams we will stick to talking about what we know !

Lets wait until after 6 o'clock (and possibly beyond) and see where things sit RE the whole thing.

CharlesThompson

08/01/2010, 3:17 PM

The "no win" scenario arises due to your incapacity to look at anything to do with Bohs with any sense of objectivity (as has been seen on a number of threads). If they are found guilty then it is OK but if they are found innocent then they are guilty anyway. What utter rubbish, but in keeping with your views on all things Bohs.
There is some excuse for fans showing bias in favour of their own club (we are all guilty) but your constant harping about Bohs is borderline scary.

I think it's more a case of if we are found guilty then "GREAT!!! Zippity Do Da, Zippity Day!!!!!" If we are found to have met the criteria for staying within the 65% rule then it's more "****, F@CK THEM!!!! The FAI are in on it with them!!!!Bah Humbug, etc. etc."

This is a no win situation for sure. In the eyes of some of the more obsessed here, Bohs are damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. That is why the obsessed are better off to debate our internal business between themselves.

Mr A

08/01/2010, 3:51 PM

CSFShels

08/01/2010, 3:57 PM

Jesus Christ, Rovers fans are becoming even more irritating than Bohs fans, and thats saying something.

John83

08/01/2010, 6:14 PM

On the no-win thing: This isn't just blind anti-Bohs sentiment as is being made out. The FAI are notoriously flaky at applying their own rules so it's perfectly reasonable to question whether they have the stomach to actually apply the 65% rule properly.
There's that, and there's also the fact that Bohs are the last of the big clubs spending beyond their means (granted, if they can sell Dalyier, they may get out of it yet) - Rovers, Shels, Pats, Cork and Derry have all either sorted themselves out or are teetering on the edge. There's been so much financial crap over the last few years that people are sick of it, and of the FAI fiddling (in the Nero-while-Rome-burns sense as much as anything) and fudging around the topic. What I'm getting at is that it's not all about Bohs. Any club where they are now would be getting this flack.

Dalymountrower

11/01/2010, 7:34 AM

Daniel O Donnell in todays indo quoting that Fenlon staying with Bohs,

Daily Mail quoting un-named FAI sources that Bohs within the 65%SCP for 2009.

Sill rumours and completely at variance with BCWTD`S Bohs Almanac and Pineapple Stu`s Crystal Ball Accounting system, so the journalists must be wrong?

marinobohs

11/01/2010, 1:29 PM

To be fair, I couldn't have predicted Bohs paying Fenlon on the sly the full amount owed, closing the loophole, but the salient point was I correctly called get out clause in the first place.

As for the SCP and associated embargo, all I merely said last year when you were predicting its lifting to hold your horses, it would be in place at least one more month. And I was 100% right.

I still expect some more twists in the tale, whether it be a rejection of your initial budget today and a possible sanction, but so far I have been bang on.

Sorry, but there never was a get out clause and the legal advice Nutsey took confirmed this. The issue of outstanding bonus payments was raised and Bohs (unlike certain other clubs we pay 100% of what we owe) dealt with the matter. there is no doubt that it was hoped it would go some way to help compensate for Nutsey not getting the DU job but was never an acknowledgement that any clause existed.
But if it makes you feel better ...............:D

The issue of SCP and embargo was never going to be addressed before today (Bohs and Cork were due to be first up ,this since changed following a request from other clubs.) as each club is required to get agreement on budget for 2010. As far as I know the FAI have not ratified any recent transfer deals pending budget sign off.

marinobohs

11/01/2010, 1:44 PM

So Bohs, by sheer fluke, happened to pay Nutsy all outstanding money in the middle of these negotiations? What an uncanny coincidence.....

But last year your fans were adament it was to be lifted in December. My point was that it wouldn't be looked at till late Jan, and I still believe that there is a sting in the tail of those accounts.

My understanding is that you were due to submit your budget today, but asked for a postponement until next week. I wonder will it take 4 drafts again this year for the FAI to accept it?

postponement was asked for last week due to "PAT FENLON GONE TO DUNDEE UTD - DONE DEAL" ring any bells ? Nutsey is part of the club negotiating team at these talks and given the uncertainty over his future the club sought a postponement.
Anything else is alwaysultra fantasy ;)

marinobohs

11/01/2010, 1:47 PM

[QUOTE=BYCTWD;1304211]So Bohs, by sheer fluke, happened to pay Nutsy all outstanding money in the middle of these negotiations? What an uncanny coincidence.....

Issue was raised and issue was addressed. I'm sure MON can expect 4% of what he is owed when he eventually gets a decent job ;)

marinobohs

11/01/2010, 1:56 PM

There's that, and there's also the fact that Bohs are the last of the big clubs spending beyond their means (granted, if they can sell Dalyier, they may get out of it yet) - Rovers, Shels, Pats, Cork and Derry have all either sorted themselves out or are teetering on the edge. There's been so much financial crap over the last few years that people are sick of it, and of the FAI fiddling (in the Nero-while-Rome-burns sense as much as anything) and fudging around the topic. What I'm getting at is that it's not all about Bohs. Any club where they are now would be getting this flack.

To be fair many Bohs posters here have said all season that if we are in breach of the 65% rule we expect to be punished. Not sure what more we can say.
It is stretching creadibility to say that if Bohs are guilty - it proves they are guilty but if they are innocent (within 65%) it proves the FAI are covering up for them.
This FAI / X files conspiracy garbage is of course nothing to do with Bohs success in recent seasons.
As was shown with Derry City I expect the FAI to clamp down on any wrongdoing at Bohs.
By the way the idea of Bohs getting any "special treatment" from the FAI would get a wry laugh at Dalymount.

marinobohs

11/01/2010, 1:59 PM

Was it? Please elaborate, I'm intrigued.

But this sort of shambles will never happen at Rovers as all our staff are fully paid, on time and there is no ambiguity over the contract status of anyone at the club.

Only ambiguity at Bohs appears to be with yourself. Still, the point has now been dealt with (done to death to be honest) so lets move on :rolleyes:

Hairy Bowsie

11/01/2010, 2:13 PM

But this sort of shambles will never happen at Rovers as all our staff are fully paid, on time and there is no ambiguity over the contract status of anyone at the club.

Please don't make out like all is rosey in the garden at Shams either though.

Acornvilla

11/01/2010, 2:23 PM

Please don't make out like all is rosey in the garden at Shams either though.
i got an image of hundreds of hoodies smoking in a field of flowers when i read that

wexfordned

11/01/2010, 2:28 PM

Please don't make out like all is rosey in the garden at Shams either though.

How dare you criticise the best run club in Ireland.

Not only are they doing everything right, they are examining every other club's finances with a fine tooth comb as they are aware no one can compare to the high moral standards they set.

In fact Shamrock should be put in charge of licencing as they seem to know more about Boh's accounts than anybody in the FAI or any Boh's fan.

SkStu

11/01/2010, 2:30 PM

So Bohs, by sheer fluke, happened to pay Nutsy all outstanding money in the middle of these negotiations? What an uncanny coincidence.....

But last year your fans were adament it was to be lifted in December. My point was that it wouldn't be looked at till late Jan, and I still believe that there is a sting in the tail of those accounts.

My understanding is that you were due to submit your budget today, but asked for a postponement until next week. I wonder will it take 4 drafts again this year for the FAI to accept it?

well im sure all your fantastic insider knowledge that you and the rest of the squealing pigs on here were boasting about last week will let you know the answer to that and everything else Bohemian you pack of effin chancers. LOL :D

You'd want to have words with your sources by the way, whoever they are.

SkStu

11/01/2010, 2:33 PM

I have no idea who 'Shams' are, but Rovers finances are in great shape and we will odds on be the only incumbant PL side going into the new season stronger on the pitch.

what have Sligo got to do with this?

Dave_SRFC

11/01/2010, 8:49 PM

Acornvilla

11/01/2010, 8:55 PM

well i guess the are almost guranteed 2nd spot but still very dodgey.....

Schumi

11/01/2010, 9:02 PM

Some good news for Fenlon though

Dundee United have said from the start of negotiations that they would not take on Fenlon through the 'back door':eek:

John83

11/01/2010, 9:10 PM

http://www.herald.ie/sport/soccer/fenlon-im-staying-2008544.html

This can't be right can it?

"Bohs make a case for inclusion of prize money as income for their budget on the basis that they won the league for the past two seasons and, realistically, only see one club (Shamrock Rovers) as challengers for next season"
Their reasoning seems to imply they're asking to include prize money for winning the league in their budget, or at least for second place. It wouldn't be unreasonable to include some prize money in their position, but the FAI's track record on passing budgets has been spotty - on one hand, they seem to have called it right at Sligo last year, but on the other, Cork.

Dalymountrower

11/01/2010, 9:39 PM

Their reasoning seems to imply they're asking to include prize money for winning the league in their budget, or at least for second place. It wouldn't be unreasonable to include some prize money in their position, but the FAI's track record on passing budgets has been spotty - on one hand, they seem to have called it right at Sligo last year, but on the other, Cork.

As all teams share in at least some of the prize money available it shouldn`t be beyond the FAI to establish a formula on an average of .say, five seasons final placings and to allow the inclusion of the resulting amount to be included in the budgets. It would then be a matter for each club to decide on whether to include a figure up to that amount in their budget.If any club maxes out on the figure and breaches the 65% then its relegation or points deduction for the following season.
It would be interesting to see how many clubs have included in prospective prize money in the submitted budgets

micls

11/01/2010, 10:56 PM

but on the other, Cork.

The budget they approved for us last year was perfectly sustainable with a wage bill of 12k.

The problem there was that we were only taking the **** when we submitted it and had no intention of sticking anywhere near it. Once this became obvious we were hit with a transfer embargo, the only thing the FAI could really do at that stage.

Of all the things the FAI have done wrong, I dont think they can be blamed for the madness of last season down here. What they'll do when it comes to this years license is a different story though.

osarusan

12/01/2010, 9:29 AM

I don't think that any club should be allowed to budget for prize money, apart from what is guaranteed (ie, for finishing last).

marinobohs

12/01/2010, 9:47 AM

My understanding is that one club has attempted to include future prizemoney and one club only.

Maybe there is an arguement for a formula. Maybe there isn't. But the issue here is one of a level playingfield, which the SCP is supposed to introduce. As such, if only one side is attempting to claim this as a revenue stream, the FAI should, rightfully, not allow the said club to do so. Which they are.

I wonder if it were Rovers trying to include this would you be so supportive of the idea?

Was it (inclusion of projected prize money) allowed last year - YES. Please direct us to the announcement of the rule change.
Whether or not it is appropriate to allow its inclusion is a moot point but there must some level of consistency in approach. the "make it up as we go along" approach so beloved by the FAI has made a joke of the 65% rule (and most other rules also).

If there was to be change I would also suggest looking at the issue of clubs reneging on contracts after the season starts - hardly within the "spirit" of the 65% rule. Players at certain clubs have (and no doubt will ) be put under pressure to cut agreed terms to "save" the club concerned. I would expect the players union to lobby on this issue.

Ezeikial

12/01/2010, 10:27 AM

If there was to be change I would also suggest looking at the issue of clubs reneging on contracts after the season starts - hardly within the "spirit" of the 65% rule. Players at certain clubs have (and no doubt will ) be put under pressure to cut agreed terms to "save" the club concerned. I would expect the players union to lobby on this issue.

Is it okay with you if a club renegotiaties contracts before the season starts?

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2009/0205/bohemians.html

Bohemians' players accept reduced contracts

Thursday, 5 February 2009
The players at Bohemian FC have finally concluded contract re-negotiations and have signed new contracts on reduced terms.

This has been greeted by a statement of relief by the players, however, one in which they have professed unhappiness with the way in which this matter was approached.

The Players' Representative Committee has issued the following statement: 'We are the glad that this stressful situation has finally come to an end.

'The players have agreed that the interests of the club must take priority at this time and we are committed to the management goal of team strengthening.
'The serious wage cuts to which we have agreed may create some personal difficulties for us in our domestic lives but we are conscious that most of the country is in the same position.
'Contrary to popular belief, footballers in this league do not earn large sums of money and our careers are very short.
'It is also very disappointing that negotiations with certain players were handled in an unsatisfactory manner.

sullanefc

12/01/2010, 10:35 AM

Redie

12/01/2010, 10:37 AM

what have Sligo got to do with this?

How silly you Stu. did you not read his post in full- he was on about the only incumbant PL side going into the new season stronger on the pitch. Does he really have to spell it out that it's The Bit O Red he's referring to?

Dalymountrower

12/01/2010, 11:27 AM

My understanding is that one club has attempted to include future prizemoney and one club only.

Maybe there is an arguement for a formula. Maybe there isn't. But the issue here is one of a level playingfield, which the SCP is supposed to introduce. As such, if only one side is attempting to claim this as a revenue stream, the FAI should, rightfully, not allow the said club to do so. Which they are.

I wonder if it were Rovers trying to include this would you be so supportive of the idea?

Hadn`t really looked at it as a Bohs /Rovers spat. There is surely a balance between encouraging prudent budgeting and nannyism. As the Cork and Derry situations has shown, any club can show pristine budgetary projection s and either completely ignore the budget or have a parallel set of books a la Max Bielenstock (not to mention submitting the same set of accounts for two seperate years). If a club is foolish enough to commit expenditure on the basis of winning titles or winning the lottery its the clubs problem if the income doesn`t materialise. This pre-supposes that the FAI will take the appropriate action in respect of such clubs.
You have already predicted that the FAI will be deducting points from Bohs at the beginning of this coming season so you seem to be confident of the FAI`s enforcement resolve ...so whats your problem? The FAI are itching to throw the book at Bohs and will do so if they get the opportunity

blackholesun

12/01/2010, 12:13 PM

My understanding is that one club has attempted to include future prizemoney and one club only.

Maybe there is an arguement for a formula. Maybe there isn't. But the issue here is one of a level playingfield, which the SCP is supposed to introduce. As such, if only one side is attempting to claim this as a revenue stream, the FAI should, rightfully, not allow the said club to do so. Which they are.

I dont think clubs should be allowed to use projected prize money as part of their budget as it only encouarges the kind of reckless speculation that has got clubs into trouble in the past.

I would actually go one further and say again that I believe that the lob-sided league prize money structure actually encourages reckless speculation. The prizemoney gap between first and second place is way too high, and simlarly second to third. There should be less money awarded to teams finishing higher up the table and more money spread out across the league to better help clubs develop facilities and improve the league overall.

bhs

marinobohs

12/01/2010, 12:14 PM

My understanding is that one club has attempted to include future prizemoney and one club only.

Maybe there is an arguement for a formula.y one side is attempting to claim this as a revenu Maybe there isn't. But the issue here is one of a level playingfield, which the SCP is supposed to introduce. As such, if onle stream, the FAI should, rightfully, not allow the said club to do so. Which they are.

I wonder if it were Rovers trying to include this would you be so supportive of the idea?

More rubbish, if a "level playing field" was the criteria behind the 65% rule then the FAI would simply set one budget for all clubs (obviously the fairest/most equitable approach).
The 65% rule is there to bring financial stability (stop laughing at the back :D) if it ever achieves that it will be something but a level playing field ?

pineapple stu

12/01/2010, 12:21 PM

marinobohs

12/01/2010, 12:32 PM

The rules should be applied consistently is what BYCTWD meant. Obviously if you earn more money, you should be able to spend more money, but all clubs should operate within the same rules, with regards the SCP among others.

It is ! open to any team to include it - problem is in having to deliver it. If shams had not choked on run in last year I seriously doubt Bohs would have made the 65%. Thank you shams :D

RoversHead

12/01/2010, 12:44 PM

Im up for letting Bohs include the prize money and even a forcasted Euro millions win to get a licence ,Give em enough rope.Long may they continue to run there club along these lines.

CMcC

12/01/2010, 1:20 PM

Mods, any chance this thread can be moved to the Shamrock Rovers section?

stovelid

12/01/2010, 1:21 PM

It is ! open to any team to include it - problem is in having to deliver it. If shams had not choked on run in last year I seriously doubt Bohs would have made the 65%. Thank you shams :D

So you're essentially OK - even boastful - with the fact that if we had stayed on top of the league for just three more games, we would have punched a 140k hole (or whatever the difference is between second and first prize money) in your figures. :confused:

No wonder outsiders think this league is a joke. And that's as a LOI supporter - not a contestant in a Bohs/Rovers ****ing contest.

placid casual

12/01/2010, 2:29 PM

It is ! open to any team to include it - problem is in having to deliver it. If shams had not choked on run in last year I seriously doubt Bohs would have made the 65%. Thank you shams :D

only goes to prove the point-The world needs its share of ditch diggers.

John83

12/01/2010, 2:41 PM

The whole notion of trying to forecast/guess what prize money/income a club will take in, in a given season is daft IMO.

Why not deal with concrete figures, whatever the clubs turnover was in the previous season, should be the budget for the following season. Take 65% of that, and thats your playing budget.

I doubt clubs' budgets yo-yo that much from year to year.
That would screw clubs who were promoted. Not every club - I doubt UCD's budget varies dramatically with it, but clubs like Dundalk and Galway have seen promotion come hand in hand with much increased attendances and local sponsorship.

Ronnie

12/01/2010, 3:00 PM

That would screw clubs who were promoted. Not every club - I doubt UCD's budget varies dramatically with it, but clubs like Dundalk and Galway have seen promotion come hand in hand with much increased attendances and local sponsorship.

The whole notion of trying to forecast/guess what prize money/income a club will take in, in a given season is daft IMO.

Why not deal with concrete figures, whatever the clubs turnover was in the previous season, should be the budget for the following season. Take 65% of that, and thats your playing budget.

I doubt clubs' budgets yo-yo that much from year to year.

This is precisely the problem - basing your figures on the previous years income is lazy at best. Gates for a promoted team do up go up, but only in the first year up, then tend to come back down the second season up, meaning that a club shjould budget for less in their second season. How many times have we seen that?
Sponsorship - it might be possible to attract new sponsors, but if you have 100 small sponsors giving you �200pa, this does not autoamatically increase just because you get promotion. And going to these people year after year your going to lose some and will have to work hard to replace them.
Face it, if the clubs with the biggest budgets are losing the most their business model is busted and its time to start again. And before Rovers fans start preaching, l appreciate youse have learned the hard way.

marinobohs

13/01/2010, 10:46 AM

So you're essentially OK - even boastful - with the fact that if we had stayed on top of the league for just three more games, we would have punched a 140k hole (or whatever the difference is between second and first prize money) in your figures. :confused:

No wonder outsiders think this league is a joke. And that's as a LOI supporter - not a contestant in a Bohs/Rovers ****ing contest.

Not sure how stating a fact is "boastful" (gratefull to be honest) simply stating a fact obvious to anyone. Personally I thought it was a dangerous presumption at the start of the season (that we would win it) but it could now be argued it was a brave decision that worked - discuss !

OneRedArmy

13/01/2010, 11:28 AM

Not sure how stating a fact is "boastful" (gratefull to be honest) simply stating a fact obvious to anyone. Personally I thought it was a dangerous presumption at the start of the season (that we would win it) but it could now be argued it was a brave decision that worked - discuss !It wasn't brave, it was ridiculous financial management and the fact it was permitted shows up the FAI.

Budgets and forecasts should be done on a conservative basis and there's a simple way to apply this to prize money: allow the prize amount for the last placed team for the forthcoming season for budgeting purposes.

Simples, as the kids like to say these days...

marinobohs

13/01/2010, 11:49 AM

How, by any criteria, has it worked? You are under transfer embargo ffs facing a possible points deduction. If this is what passes for joined up thinking in D7, no wonder you are in such a shambolic state off the pitch.

Regardless, the fact that the loophole has now been closed. So how much will you have to shave off this years projected budget to comply and what does this do for your prosepctive signings and manager situation? That is the question you should really be asking, rather than finding a nice bit of sand in Dollymount to bury your head in.

trophies won (concept you are probobly not familiar with) :D As a matter of interest how much of a drop off in crowds are Dundalk (novelty of promotion) and shams (novelty of new play pen) allowing for in budget for next year ?