Bohs in financial trouble - FAI Licencing called into question again? [Archive] - Page 26

pineapple stu

17/02/2011, 9:21 AM

but the thing that has me riled is the fact that we, the fans, have tried to stop that rot and behave in a proper manner, and look where it got us. From what I can see, Bohs, on the other hand, continue to sully the name of a league that now resembles confetti, such has been the constant shredding of its reputation.
If it's any consolation, in a couple of years' time, Galway will reap the benefits of that approach while Bohs' problems will come home to roost.

Dodge

17/02/2011, 9:23 AM

From what I can see, Bohs, on the other hand, continue to sully the name of a league that now resembles confetti, such has been the constant shredding of its reputation.

There's no argument from me there. Thats why there's no need to bring the plights of other clubs into it.

Nedser

17/02/2011, 9:23 AM

Now every club knows what to do next year, including our naive selves. I agree with Dodge to be honest, we were judged against the licensing criteria and failed. Bohs played the system and didn't fail. Both clubs have been run in a shocking manner in recent years, but the thing that has me riled is the fact that we, the fans, have tried to stop that rot and behave in a proper manner, and look where it got us. From what I can see, Bohs, on the other hand, continue to sully the name of a league that now resembles confetti, such has been the constant shredding of its reputation.

Give it a rest. This latest hitch clearly wasn't a deliberate ploy by Bohs - if the money from the loans scheme doesn't come through, they're screwed, licence or no licence.

Olander

17/02/2011, 9:24 AM

However they fulfilled the licensing criteria and Galway didn’t.With lies. That's no good for anyone.

Both clubs have been run in a shocking manner in recent years, but the thing that has me riled is the fact that we, the fans, have tried to stop that rot and behave in a proper manner, and look where it got us. From what I can see, Bohs, on the other hand, continue to sully the name of a league that now resembles confetti, such has been the constant shredding of its reputation.
Spot on...

Ezeikial

17/02/2011, 9:30 AM

This latest Indo report certainly indicates further financial trouble at Bohs, and most definately calls the FAI licencing system into question again.

If the Indo is correct that "The club have been told to expect a letter that will lift that charge by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport, but as of last night, it had not been received and the club remain in the dark about when it will arrive" it begs a number of questions

1) Have the Dept confirmed to Bohs that they will waive their charge on the stadium, or alternatively permit the loanees to have a preferential charge?

2) What is the Bohs board strategy if this agreement is not forthcoming?

3) Why would the Govt provide this concession on taxpayers money?

4) Did Bohs declare this caveat to the players involved when negotiating the settlement and agreeing a date for payment?

5) Is this episode another indication that the Bohs board are incapable of ethically and morally sound management of the club?

6) Do the members of the club support the actions of the board which appear to be alienating many people in football and in the wider community?

John83

17/02/2011, 9:30 AM

From what I can see, Bohs, on the other hand, continue to sully the name of a league that now resembles confetti, such has been the constant shredding of its reputation.
Sadly, like Bev Cooper-Flynn, the league has no good name to sully.

Olander

17/02/2011, 9:34 AM

If it's any consolation, in a couple of years' time, Galway will reap the benefits of that approach while Bohs' problems will come home to roost.

Thanks Stu.

Sadly, it will be no consolation when we're playing Fanad Utd on front of 50 people.

We still hope for a Premier Licence. But I don't expect.

Mr A

17/02/2011, 9:36 AM

"The club have been told to expect a letter that will lift that charge by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport, but as of last night, it had not been received and the club remain in the dark about when it will arrive"

Very worrying for Bohs, as this could take a while. Anybody involved in the Harps Stadium project could tell you about how long the simplest things can take when dealing with Irish bureaucracy. Hopefully it gets sorted quick so the players can get what they are owed.

I wonder are the new signings registered yet? If not it would seem mad to register them while the slightest doubt remains over these loans.

WoodquayBoy

17/02/2011, 9:37 AM

If it's any consolation, in a couple of years' time, Galway will reap the benefits of that approach while Bohs' problems will come home to roost.
That is the hope we have to cling to on what could be a very very long road back

Nedser

17/02/2011, 9:37 AM

3) Why would the Govt provide this concession on taxpayers money?

Because refusing to do so would mean Bohs go to the wall, and the taxpayers would stand to benefit by just a few cents each?

pineapple stu

17/02/2011, 9:38 AM

Because refusing to do so would mean Bohs go to the wall, and the taxpayers would stand to benefit by just a few cents each?

Why should the taxpayer be hit for so much when ye've a lovely big asset ye keep telling us about (and keep selling)?

Edit - and in fact, the scheme as proposed by Bohs would lessen the Government's chance of getting paid in full because they'd be pushed down in terms of priority.

Longfordian

17/02/2011, 9:40 AM

It's impossible to have things done quickly with them, but it should be done in the end. Have Zurich no charge on the ground?

Very worrying for Bohs, as this could take a while. Anybody involved in the Harps Stadium project could tell you about how long the simplest things can take when dealing with Irish bureaucracy. Hopefully it gets sorted quick so the players can get what they are owed.

I wonder are the new signings registered yet? If not it would seem mad to register them while the slightest doubt remains over these loans.

Ezeikial

17/02/2011, 9:43 AM

Because refusing to do so would mean Bohs go to the wall, and the taxpayers would stand to benefit by just a few cents each?

That is a logical and sensible reason.

But if this is so, it is because the organisers of the loan scheme made this "first charge issue" it a requirement of the loan scheme. Surely the loan scheme did not require this as an essential element?

If they did, agreement from the Govt should have been secured in the first place (maybe it was?)

It appears to be yet another round of Russian Roulette from a compulsive gambler

Nedser

17/02/2011, 9:48 AM

Why should the taxpayer be hit for so much when ye've a lovely big asset ye keep telling us about (and keep selling)?

Surely the taxpayer got "hit" when the grants were paid? I don't know the ins and outs of this, but I assume the charge is there simply to ensure the sports capital grants are repaid if the stadium is demolished within a set period of time. I don't know how much the grants were, but clearly not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things. I also very much doubt if Bohs have raised a massive amount through these loans, so in all likelihood, if and when Dalyer is sold (again!), it would raise enough money to repay both the supporters and the grants.

However, in the unlikely event that doesn't happen, and the taxpayers get nothing, it would make sod all difference to the country's coffers. Just to reiterate that the govt never expected to get this money back, as it was given away in grants!

Nedser

17/02/2011, 9:52 AM

But if this is so, it is because the organisers of the loan scheme made this "first charge issue" it a requirement of the loan scheme. Surely the loan scheme did not require this as an essential element?

Of course it was an essential element!! Do you honestly think people were going to lend Bohs money without it being secured on a tangible asset?

If they did, agreement from the Govt should have been secured in the first place (maybe it was?)

The article that has prompted this latest hoo-ha says it was "The club have been told to expect a letter that will lift that charge by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport".

pineapple stu

17/02/2011, 9:54 AM

The only alternative to Dalyer being sold is that ye raise enough money to pay off the loan. That's not going to happen. Dalymount will be sold one way or the other. By putting these loans ahead of the Government grants, though, you're increasing the possibility that there won't be enough money left to pay back the grant from the proceeds, and so increasing the chance that the taxpayer will get nothing. The amount of charges against it at the moment - Zurich, grants, loans - the rapidly depreciating property market and the access issue mean we must be getting close to the stage where the ultimate proceeds from the sale won't actually cover everything secured against it.

And if the Government want the money back, it's more than likely because ye mis-spent it (like on wages) and so they do now expect to get it back.

gufct

17/02/2011, 10:06 AM

JC_GUFC

17/02/2011, 10:07 AM

The article that has prompted this latest hoo-ha says it was "The club have been told to expect a letter that will lift that charge by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport".

I think Mary Hanafin has bigger issues to worry about at the moment than licking the stamp for that envelope... now if she was in Dublin North West it might be a different matter...

Nedser

17/02/2011, 10:07 AM

The only alternative to Dalyer being sold is that ye raise enough money to pay off the loan. That's not going to happen. Dalymount will be sold one way or the other.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Bohs actually openly said this in their appeal for loans.

By putting these loans ahead of the Government grants, though, you're increasing the possibility that there won't be enough money left to pay back the grant from the proceeds, and so increasing the chance that the taxpayer will get nothing.

You don't seem to get the point here - the taxpayer/govt never planned to recoup this money. The Capital Sports Grants guidelines say "The Deed, which registers a legal charge over the grant-aided facility, is your guarantee to us that the facility will be used for the purpose you have stated in your application. If the facility ceases to be used for this purpose, we can demand that you repay the sports capital grant". Bohs have clearly used the facility for the purpose stated. Also, as I already said, this is a miniscule amount of money. I'm willing to be it's a lot less than the revenue wrote off for rovers - but that was revenue the govt expected and was entitled to.

marinobohs

17/02/2011, 10:13 AM

There are very valid reasons why Galway will get their Licence back tomorrow .Im not going to air them here but the internal depts. in the FAI dont seem to be cross checking facts before they make their decisions.

Genuinely hope this proves true GUFCT as (unlike some on here) I dont wish to see any club in trouble. Appreciate you probobly cant expand on reasons but glad to see you are optimistic !
As I posted earlier I think (based on what I read here) that there is enough scope for the FAI to give Galway a prem licence (Revenue clarification etc) but also enough grounds to refuse one (timelines). On the basis of what we know on here I think it very much depends on the intention of the FAI (today would be a good day to order some Aviva tickets :)).

JC_GUFC

17/02/2011, 10:13 AM

"The Deed, which registers a legal charge over the grant-aided facility, is your guarantee to us that the facility will be used for the purpose you have stated in your application. If the facility ceases to be used for this purpose, we can demand that you repay the sports capital grant". Bohs have clearly used the facility for the purpose stated.

I'm confused - are they not actually looking for money to pay players as the wage bill was way OTT? This is a genuine question - not being a wum.

Dodge

17/02/2011, 10:14 AM

Bohs mate told me that an 'investor' had loaned the club 100k which he stipulated had to go to playing budget. Seems bizarre. Any bohs fans able to confirm/deny?

pineapple stu

17/02/2011, 10:16 AM

"If the facility ceases to be used for this purpose, we can demand that you repay the sports capital grant". Bohs have clearly used the facility for the purpose stated.
I'm confused here - why is there a charge for the grant so?

However, the final step in completing the paperwork with regard to those loans has been delayed by the government as they have a charge on the stadium through the issuing of sports capital grants.
Surely if the money was used for the correct purpose, there should be no charge? And similarily, if there is a charge, then Bohs clearly haven't used the facility for the purpose stated?

Dodge

17/02/2011, 10:21 AM

I'm confused here - why is there a charge for the grant so?

Surely if the money was used for the correct purpose, there should be no charge? And similarily, if there is a charge, then Bohs clearly haven't used the facility for the purpose stated?

The grant agreement probably states that grant money must be used for sporting reasons for a period of time (say ten years). If Bohs sell ground within those ten years, then they must repay the sports grant.

Just speculating on timelines etc but makes sense to me

marinobohs

17/02/2011, 10:21 AM

Bohs mate told me that an 'investor' had loaned the club 100k which he stipulated had to go to playing budget. Seems bizarre. Any bohs fans able to confirm/deny?

Dodge, without breaching too many confidences, all the money raised (including one 100 K) by the loan scheme is boxed off in a seperate account outside the clutches of our nefarious board. Tthe money is earmarked to (a) pay off the exiting players contracts and (b) assure funds are in place to pay players for 2011 (Nutsey referred to this in Mondays press conference without expanding on it).

If true it would mean money is guaranteed for players contracts in 2011 and would be a major step forward for the club in avoiding a repetition of the recent debacle.
I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread but too much to trawl through :o.

Buile Shuibhne

17/02/2011, 10:29 AM

Mr A

17/02/2011, 10:32 AM

Guinney

17/02/2011, 10:41 AM

Imo as Dundalk have more players signed than last year then it is logical that there has been some increase in playing budget, closer to 8k possibly.

That�s not entirely true. At the end of last season Dundalk had 21 players in the 1st team squad (4 on amateur terms and Hatswell was a player coach), this year -not including Shaun Maher - we have 18 signed (one on amateur terms (Osbourne) and another on loan (Hector from Reading)). But as a squad this year I think we are stronger, plus with Kierans replacing Hatswell we will have a full time assistant manager alongside Foster.

PS. Sorry for going off topic.

marinobohs

17/02/2011, 10:50 AM

The players signed off an agreement to accept delayed payment this week - in order to allow Bohs meet the licence requirements.

Were the players told that Govt / Dept of Sport had 'a charge on the stadium' which had to be released before the monies due to them could be released?

At worst - fraud by Bohs
At best - sharp practice.

The Independent Licencing people should revoke Bohs licence

Without knowing the content of the actual agreement between Bohs and the players (was payment date specified) it is difficult to know if terms breached - it is possible it was just a statement claiming all outstanding monies had been agreed upon (genuinely dont know) in which case no agreement breached.
I would further imagine Licencing people will only act if players contact them but as we do know this could jepordise any payment to them (given terms of Bohs loan agreement) and unless they do a "lanagans ball" (Bohs stepped out Galway back in) i doubt that they (FAI) will be looking to boot out any more teams.

pineapple stu

17/02/2011, 10:52 AM

The Independent Licencing people should revoke Bohs licence
Probably won't happen, but if it did, I think Shels are next in line, yeah?

Dodge

17/02/2011, 11:08 AM

Probably won't happen, but if it did, I think Shels are next in line, yeah?

Monaghan, when galway get theirs back ;)

Didn't realise that the loans fans gave to club were for the 2011 budget too marino. Thanks for clarifying that particular piece of lunacy

marinobohs

17/02/2011, 11:26 AM

Monaghan, when galway get theirs back ;)

Didn't realise that the loans fans gave to club were for the 2011 budget too marino. Thanks for clarifying that particular piece of lunacy

Cheers Dodge, as for clarifying - this is Bohs :rolleyes: so nothing is really clear. Though it was a strange provision (money to sit in seperate account etc) but apparently was a term of the loan deal (and not by bohs).

SkStu

17/02/2011, 2:23 PM

it was stated pretty clearly on the terms of the loan if anyone here had bothered to check.

Dodge - your Bohs mate told you that? Its been on the same thread on the Bohs mb that you post in for two days. Please.

Everyone else, its a crying shame that the players still havent been paid what they are owed but quite how it is totally Bohs' fault is unclear to me. The infomation in the article seems quite transparent and clear. McGuinness has said the players are fuming but nowhere have i seen him cry foul or say this is Bohs fault or that the players were mislead. As we all know he is not afraid to bash us in the press when necessary. No need for the outbusts here in my opinion.

Dodge

17/02/2011, 2:32 PM

Dodge - your Bohs mate told you that? Its been on the same thread on the Bohs mb that you post in for two days. Please

Is it? its a massive thread and I only went on your forum last night for first time in a while. Not like I was sharing inside info or anything. Saying that a bohs fans told me is the same as 'its on their forum'.

SkStu

17/02/2011, 2:34 PM

"their" forum? hmmm.

Oh well, no big deal.

Charlie Darwin

17/02/2011, 2:40 PM

Everyone else, its a crying shame that the players still havent been paid what they are owed but quite how it is totally Bohs' fault is unclear to me.
Well it appears that Bohs entered into contracts that they were not entitled to make - or at least not entitled to exercise the terms of - until they'd received an exemption from the revenue. So that would make it totally Bohs' fault.

SkStu

17/02/2011, 2:45 PM

Well it appears that Bohs entered into contracts that they were not entitled to make - or at least not entitled to exercise the terms of - until they'd received an exemption from the revenue. So that would make it totally Bohs' fault.

im sorry CD. You will have to explain that to me. What contract? If it is the settlement you are talking about, i am sure that this would have been disclosed as part of the loan agreement and in negotiations with PFAI. As McGuinness has not cried foul does that not suggest that they knew this was a condition of the settlement and therefore the delay is attributable elsewhere.

And what has the revenue got to do with this? Have you read the article? Did you mean the Department of T,C & S?

Charlie Darwin

17/02/2011, 3:21 PM

I did mean the Department, yeah.

I'm going by this article (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/bohs-back-in-hot-water-2544479.html) from the Indo so this is all based on the accuracy of that report.

Bohs have secured their future with a series of loans from members and supporters using Dalymount as security.
The sports grant received by Bohs is also secured on Dalymount, presumably guarding against the possibility the club could go under.
At the moment, the government has the prime charge on the ground, however the terms of the new loan(s) is that the loanees be given primacy.

It is incumbent on nobody exception Bohemians to ensure that the government department waives its first charge on the ground, no?

HulaHoop

17/02/2011, 3:37 PM

This latest twist completely justisfies the actions of Shelley and Higgins in making sure they got their money. I'd say the rest of the players now regret not adding their names to the winding up petition.

SkStu

17/02/2011, 3:54 PM

It is incumbent on nobody exception Bohemians to ensure that the government department waives its first charge on the ground, no?

Again, im not really sure if you are aware of the contents of the article.

The Department has indicated that it is in agreement to release the charge as requested. The delay in paying the players is due to not having recieved the letter from the Department yet, a legal requirement in order for the funds to be released to the club.

There is nothing to suggest any of this is a surprise to the PFAI or McGuinness.

Longfordian

17/02/2011, 4:10 PM

The main question I'd have about the arrangement is why Zurich would agree to a charge being created which would rank ahead of theirs? I presume they have a fixed charge on Dalymount anyway?

Dodge

17/02/2011, 4:16 PM

The Department has indicated that it is in agreement to release the charge as requested. The delay in paying the players is due to not having recieved the letter from the Department yet, a legal requirement in order for the funds to be released to the club

You sure thats all it is? If they've orally committed to something, knocking up a letter isn't too big an issue. If it still has to go through a couple of stages within that Department, then thats another issue altogether. If the club haev no idea when they'll receive the letter we could another month or so and neither back pay, nor nomal wages will be paid?

Charlie Darwin

17/02/2011, 4:39 PM

Again, im not really sure if you are aware of the contents of the article.

The Department has indicated that it is in agreement to release the charge as requested. The delay in paying the players is due to not having recieved the letter from the Department yet, a legal requirement in order for the funds to be released to the club.

There is nothing to suggest any of this is a surprise to the PFAI or McGuinness.
Right, but it's the club's responsibility to obtain the letter in a timely manner. You can't just throw up your hands and say "bureaucracy!"

HulaHoop

17/02/2011, 4:40 PM

What I don't get is why Bohs have not got this approval from the Department before now. Surely they would have needed the Department to release the charge before they signed the Danninger deal to sell Dalyer five years ago. Wouldn't they also have needed it to sell the shopping centre end to Albion or whatever deal they did with Albion only last year? I find it amazing and not very believable that this charge the Department of Sport has over Dalymount didn't come up once during the numerous property deals Bohs have been involved in over the last 5 years yet suddenly when it comes down to paying players with loans secured on the future sale of Dalymount it becomes a big issue.

Longfordian

17/02/2011, 4:46 PM

They wouldn't have needed it until all the legalities were being finalised as regards the sale but they must have needed it for their Zurich loan unless Zurich were happy to take second charge which seems unlikely.

SkStu

17/02/2011, 6:08 PM

Zurich dont have a charge on the entire site by the way.

Just as the Department doesnt have a charge on the entire site.

Mr A

17/02/2011, 6:14 PM

So I'm guessing the department have a charge on the Jodi, Zurich on the car park and Albion on the shopping centre end or something like that?

Jicked

17/02/2011, 6:35 PM

Do Bohemian FC have a PRO?

SkStu

17/02/2011, 6:39 PM

i think we need to organise "A Night With... Bohemians"

we can charge you all in and you can ask all your questions and boo and throw rotten tomatoes at the club and stuff. e5 a head reasonable? Should cover our wages through 2013.

:)

Magicme

17/02/2011, 7:05 PM