Compensation

My understanding of this is that Bohs owed Fenlon money, and he could have considered this breach of contract.

In order to be in a position to negotiate compensation with Dundee United, Bohs paid or agreed to pay Fenlon, or came to some mutually satisfactory deal. The outcome of this was that Bohs were now in a position to negotiate with Dundee without fear of Fenlon just walking away.

If this is what happened, I think Bohs did well out of the situation, regardless of how it played out in the press.

All the pontifacting by some bohs fan about the Fenlon situation is laughable when they let one of the best young players in the league leave for €100k just a couple of weeks beforehand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gufct

All the pontifacting by some bohs fan about the Fenlon situation is laughable when they let one of the best young players in the league leave for €100k just a couple of weeks beforehand.

---

Who ? if it is Deegan you are talking about then I suggest you read the view of a certain sham contributor who insisted we got nothing for him ;) The fact is it is very difficult to stop anyone, player or manager going if they wish to. Dundee Utd don't appear to have been all that interested in Nutsey given the negotiating "style" they adopted. Fortunately for all parties concerned Coventry operated differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

There is a difference between 'standing your ground' and what Bohs did though. Long and short of it, Dundee United decided they couldn't even negotiate with the representitives of Bohs who had played hardball with a manager who at the time was out of contract. Only a stroke in paying Fenlon in full on the sly kept him there (for now). So you are now stuck with a manager who doesn't want to be there at a cost of €100,000 and questions at just the wrong time about where this amount owed was in the accounts.

Right approach, comically executed.

I can assure you that if DU approach Rovers for MON, it will be dealt with in the exact opposite manner to Gerry Conway's insistance on having it out in the press.

---

Yep, because MON will have his cases already packed ! By the way Nutsey took legal advice which confirmed he was not out of contract but keep saying it anyway if it helps get over your embarassment at the rubbish you posted last week :D By the way still laughing ???????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Because the amount they held out for here was entirely at odds with the situation they found themselves in and has left Nutsy clearly fuming about their approcach.

Like I say, Bohs were right to try and get the best deal for their club, but if they wanted to keep Fenlon they should have simply said 'not for sale' rather than string DU and Fenlon along with a pointless negotiation. That was amateur night from Comical Gerry.

---

What are you talking about?! Are those blinkers hardwired onto your head? Why would Bohs say 'not for sale' when we would have released him for his worth figure? Not only did we state this from the outset, but we even told them (and everybody else stupidly!!!) how much we would let him go for!

Your blinkered, anti-Bohs position is actually comical at this stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

LOL.

Serious question. Are you happy with how Gerry Conway handled this?

---

The only issue I would have with what happened is that Bohs did not insist on agereeing a fee before allowing Nutsey talk to Dundee Utd. This may have arisen as some at the club believed (true or not) that he already had talked to DU prior to the request for permission arriving in Dalymount. other than that happy with the way it was handled (incidentially most of the negotiating was not done by Gerry Conway)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

But the point I'm making is that if Bohs had this money lying around, why not just pay the man. It shouldn't require a club sniffing around Fenlon for them to do what they should have in the first place, or put another way, they should have protected their asset properly.

Same old Bohs, doing things half arsed. See also property dealings. Or their accounts.

---

the money could have come from the deegan sale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acornvilla

the money could have come from the deegan sale

---

The fee we didn't get ? :D:D:D

Its pointless looking only at what the "other" side can afford to pay. Any transaction involves a seller and a buyer, and the financial position of the seller is as important, if not more so, than that of the buyer.

Asking clubs to stand their ground is no different to appealing for them to be run better. Its the same core problem. If most clubs cashflow management wasn't akin to that of a junkie searching for enough cash for the next hit, then they wouldn't be "forced" into accepting sums that seem low by comparison. The other side of the transaction knows how desperate LoI clubs are for cash, ergo the price will never be what it could be if clubs had year on year financial security.

So, until LoI clubs are run better, we'll continue to be shafted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Yeah, Bohs paid him in full at that precise time just for the craic.....

---

give it a rest for christ sake.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Yeah, Bohs paid him in full at that precise time just for the craic.....

---

Answered on other thread :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gufct

All the pontifacting by some bohs fan about the Fenlon situation is laughable when they let one of the best young players in the league leave for €100k just a couple of weeks beforehand.

---

100k for an out of contract player,:rolleyes:tell me again, how much did Galway get for Greene?? Now that's laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Its a legitimate point. If Bohs are so adament that their verbal contract with Nutsy to defer monies owed was airtight, why pay him in full at that point?

---

Because he asked? You're trawling the bottom BYCtwd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Because you don't want to answer the question?

---

Whether or not it is legitimate, I think it's unimportant.

I'm assuming that any deal done regarding money owed would have needed his consent - as in Bohs couldn't just dump the money in his account and tell him that there is no longer a breach of contract.

If Fenlon had been in a position to walk away from Bohs, and had really wanted to do so, why didn't he? Why did he allow Bohs to wreck his move to a bigger club?

Fenlon obviously wanted to leave, and many posters on here were of the opinion he would leave for nothing. If this were true, then Bohs have managed to move from that situation to a situation where they either keep Fenlon or get what they consider a good price for him (personally I don't think any club is going to offer 200 grand for him).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I'm assuming that any deal done regarding money owed would have needed his consent - as in Bohs couldn't just dump the money in his account and tell him that there is no longer a breach of contract.

If Fenlon had been in a position to walk away from Bohs, and had really wanted to do so, why didn't he? Why did he allow Bohs to wreck his move to a bigger club?
.

---

I suspect that there was an element of appeasement in Bohs paying the outstanding bonuses, helping to mitigate blocking his move to DU. As you rightly pointed out IF (as some shams posted) he could leave on a free he presumably would have. All this is speculation without knowing the terms of his contract but evidence (as shown) was that there was no breach of contract. Don't expect shams to accept this and really pointless discussion at this stage. Show over, time to move on ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

If Fenlon had been in a position to walk away from Bohs, and had really wanted to do so, why didn't he? Why did he allow Bohs to wreck his move to a bigger club?

---

Presumably because Bohs paid up what he was owed, which meant that there then wasn't any breach of contract.

I don't think that Fenlon, legally, could refuse to accept the money he was owed in order to maintain the breach of contract. Just doesn't sound right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Presumably because Bohs paid up what he was owed, which meant that there then wasn't any breach of contract.

I don't think that Fenlon, legally, could refuse to accept the money he was owed in order to maintain the breach of contract. Just doesn't sound right.

---

You believe that if Fenlon was owed X (for an unknown amount of time), thus constituting a breach of contract, but Bohs put that X into his account, his contract is now valid again, as if no non-payments had never happened?

I doubt that myself. If somebody says they'll pay you 5,000 a week, but doesn't pay you at all for 20 weeks, then pays you 100,000, are you saying that after receiving the 100,000, an employee would have no grounds for saying contract had been breached?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

thats exactly what I am saying.

now, where did Bohs get this money and how was the debt accounted for in their accounts?

---

Meeting gets postponed and magic pencil gets sharpend, Id expect it all to rosey this time next week.Rob Peter to pay Paul I mean Pat.Simple really:D

Why don't you just come out and say it byctwd? That you hate Bohs so much that if you could, you'd relegate us yourself. Your posturing here is nothing short of judge and jury stuff. The FACT is that Bohs are not in breach of whatever the details of Fenlons contract says because of whatever is written in it and/or because of whatever verbal agreement was undertaken to the satisfaction of both Pat Fenlon and Bohemian FC. You are basically chipping away at a cast iron curtain with a toothpick. Secondly I don't know where Bohs got the money from in order to put it into Pat Fenlons account any more than you do. I choose to believe that it is accounted for and came from a legitimate source. You obviously don't - but I'd suggest that that is just wishful thinnking on your part.

osasarun- I don't know the details of Pat Fenlons contract or whatever verbal agreement took place between himself and the club, I'd guess the vast majority of Bohs members are in the same boat . I'd respectfully suggest you know no more than I or the other members do. But if somebody says they'll pay somebody else 5k per week and doesn't pay them for 20 weeks by their agreement, then pony's up with 100k, my guess is that with the agreed arrangement a contract has not been breached. I think the key word is 'agreement' here. Something which so many of you seem to want to choose to ignore or speculate otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlesThompson

Something which so many of you seem to want to choose to ignore or speculate otherwise.

---

If you're posting about me, you'd want to read my posts again.

I'm agreeing with you that without agreement (from Fenlon in this case) simply paying the money owed doesn't automatically mean there are no longer grounds for a breach in contract.

The logical conclusion of this assumption (and it may be wrong) is that Bohs could only have removed grounds for breach of contract with Fenlon's consent, and therefore claims that he was screwed by Bohs are wrong.

Either way, Bohs have ended up in a situation where they either keep their manager or get what they think he's worth. Apart from the embarrassment of ending up owing him money in the first place, I think the situation has been handled well enough.