They didn't need to. The 400 club brought that to the attention of the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordned
They didn't need to. The 400 club brought that to the attention of the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordned
I'm sure the club will respond to any questions the FAI have on the 'evidence', which, in case we forget, it has provided itself. The former youth director has already given some detail publicly on the Bohs forum, but I'm not going to be your kangaroo court messenger boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
None of it changes the fact that this is an unworthy reaction to losing the league. A new low.
Of course its bitterness. Lost the league so lets show how even more small time we are by whinging to the FAI about Bohs spending habits. All the more pathetic considering their history of not paying laundrette bills and blowing stadium cash on players wages.
Exactly. I'm sure Bohs weren't breaking any rules, but it's a loophole the FAI should be closing. It's shocking that the FAI are only looking into it now, dispite having access to the figures. Are they just stuffed in a drawer when submitted? They (the FAI) seem determined to shed licencing of every last thread of credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
So Bohs fans- in your opinion have your club been paying players via avenues other than the normal way or not?
Have they been paid as coaches?
Have they been paid as fundraisers?
Have they been paid as barmen?
And in each case did they actually perform the role? Or are the questions simply irrelevant because it was Rovers that asked them?
The participation agreement has a lot of references to the spirit as well as the letter of the rules, so a club could obey the letter but still find themselves in trouble.
Dismissing posts as "bitter" is against the rules here. If you have a counter point to make, then make it. If all you can add is "bitter", your post will be deleted. It's just a way of avoiding the issue, and will only lead to flame wars.
I'm assuming the insinuation is that the increased costs in running the underage teams, the bar and fundraising is because the 65% protocol is being circumvented by paying players as underage coaches, barstaff or fundraising staff?
Not an issue I guess if they're fulfilling those roles, but if it's a 65% dodge then the question is right to be asked, regardless of who it is doing the asking.
Edit: Just saw Mr.A's post there, same questions.
Any Bohs fans care to answer?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
I find it ironic that Bohs fans are accusing Shams of trying to win the title in the boardroom like they have the moral high ground. If Bohs have broken the salary cap, willingly and knowingly, and tried to cover it up through dodgy accounting, then that is also winning the title in the boardroom.
I can't understand the long term reasoning as to why Bohs fans should be so negative towards this move. Surely if the books are being cooked to pay the players extra pushing up running costs to an unmanageable level this is only going to hurt the club in the long run. Shel's overspending in the last few years should be the only point of reference Bohs need to know what can happen if they keep up that sort of jigacting.
Its a shame that it had to be Rovers to highlight the fact, the enevitable 'bitter Rovers' tag was always going to be thrown about. Clubs really do need to start lifting the lid to regulate eachother because the FAI don't seem to want to keep these clubs in line.
But surely its the FAI who will decide if rules have been broken.
There are ligitimate reasons for the costs of running the under age set up. Maybe by spending more on youth it shows a bigger committment then Rovers obviously have to their kids. And maybe it showed Bohs having to put the under age set up in order after not investing enough in previous years. Training facilities? Can you really compare DCU with where ever it is Rovers train? As for salaries being catagorised under non salary catagories - which is the fundamental question here. I wouldn't know, and few if any here can say for definate. But just beacuse a club spends more on youth and training facilities doesnt make them outside the rules does it? Let Rovers ask away but it matters not a jot what they alledge, or allude to, or accuse or whatever if the FAI decide they are happy with the audited accounts. Isn't that what was supposed to happen this month anyway under the licencing? Why Rovers feel the need to specifically raise these when surely the FAI are/will be looking at the same accounts and asking the same questions would lead some to believe its a point scoring exercise and sour grapes.
And could the FAI take this as a swipe at their credibility (i know !!) in a 'we dont trust you to be above board' sort of way.
Is it up to the clubs themselves to hire auditors etc and submit records to the league or is it one company contracted to do the whole league?
Technical victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by D24Hoop
On behalf of Wellvan Ltd I claim the worlds most creative accounts title.
Please send the prize to the liquidator.
Thanks.
Bitter words, Stu - bitter words...Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
;)
Yes, Rovers haven't said you broke the rules, only highlighted some concerns to the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
Is it not mentioned somewhere in this thread, that Bohs have such a commitment to their youth teams, that they didn't even pay the league fees?Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
If it doesn't matter, why are all you Boh's fans getting so worked up about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
Yes, because we all know that the FAI are such a shining example of a competent, well-run organisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
Boh's have been fiddling the books to stay under the 65% cap for awhile now and got away with it, so I assume our board (who at least don't contradict themselves and the known facts in every press release) decided to raise some concerns, as they are perfectly entitled to do. If there is nothing amiss in your books, you have nothing to worry about, so relax and chill out ;)
Could be some truth in this yet they charge €500 for a child to join so where is all that money watch this space
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenMcG
If the league fees were not paid the teams would not have been allowed to participate
Of course its the FAI who should decide if rules have been broken. But of more clubs were to cry foul wouldn't that mean less clubs would try to fiddle the accounts if they knew that other clubs could alert the FAI about such goings on. At the moment the FAI wouldn't notice a warning klaxon going off in their own office, so if someone is willing to tell them that there's a fire, shouldn't the FAI be grateful and do their best to put it out?? It would be far more damaging to the FAI's 'cred' if it didn't do anything at allQuote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
I'm sure with Rovers' actions other clubs doing the same as Derry or maybe Bohs (and I'm sure there's plenty) will think twice about doing the same next season.
Interesting. Just in regard to the possible employing of players as coaches, I read somewhere, I think it was a post from Battery Rover on here who would be in a position to know, that the only coaches that will be coming within the 65% rule are those working with the first team. Sounds entirely like the FAI to be seen to be closing a loophole but not actually doing anything
What exactly has Rovers' laundrette 5 years ago got to do with Bohs' spending this season?Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
I'm intrigued to know if Bohs are using the same laundrette maybe. Some faith in the LOI that place has if it is the case..or how desperate it is in the recession for customers maybe.