Bohs exceeding 65%?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

15/05/2009, 1:45 PM
Raheny Red

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Transfer embargo when no club can sign players until July is pretty funny in fairness...

As a Shels fan aptly put it this morning, "like being barred from a boozer for the duration of Good Friday." :D
15/05/2009, 1:54 PM
Ezeikial

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

"In recent months" probably encompasses the pre-season? I think they have cut the wage bill since last season (through a combination of releasing players and reallocating wages). It's just not enough of a reduction.

If they are relating to current wage bill versus last season, then the phrase "in recent months" is disingenuous at best.

Either way, I find it hard to get my head around the suggestion that Bohs have trimmed their wage bill by almost 40%, particularly when you consider the late pre-season additions of Keegan, Shelley, and Ndo.

I can certainly understand the accusations of cheating that are being levelled at Bohs. If they fail to get their house in order in relation to the 65% cap, perhaps they deserve the sanction of graveyard time visiting Kildare, Monaghan and Mervue as has been clearly stated as a consequence by Padraig Smith.
15/05/2009, 1:57 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

I can certainly understand the accusations of cheating that are being levelled at Bohs. If they fail to get their house in order in relation to the 65% cap, perhaps they deserve the sanction of graveyard time visiting Kildare, Monaghan and Mervue as had been clearly stated as a consequence by Padraig Smith.

If that happens, it might actually generate some good will for and faith in the financial compliance side of the FAI administration. For now, it's not hard to imagine it'll all be fudged yet again.
15/05/2009, 2:13 PM
dublinred

I can't see many clubs being within the 65% in the current economic enviorment , costs are generally fixed and income varies so if a club remains within the approved costs at the begining of the season and income is way down they can hardly be sanctioned by the people who approved the budget in the first place.
15/05/2009, 2:18 PM
niallsparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoversHead

"We are making every effort to get within the 65% rule..........I cant say what the chances of success on that will be .Im not going to put a bet on that."Brian Trench Bohs new PRO admitting last friday that Bohs are cheating and probobly wont stop.
The FAI transfer embargo is the powers that be saying we know your cheating and this will make it look like we are doing something about it.All emotion aside Bohs and Cork are cheats and both clubs have had ample opportunity to trim their wage bills to comply with the rule.

In fairness to Brian Trench, he's only recently elected. Our new board have some big problems to fix. I do agree though that if we finish the season above the 65% threshold then there should be a severe punishment.
15/05/2009, 2:30 PM
RoversHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by londonred

I can't see many clubs being within the 65% in the current economic enviorment , costs are generally fixed and income varies so if a club remains within the approved costs at the begining of the season and income is way down they can hardly be sanctioned by the people who approved the budget in the first place.

Costs are fixed to an extent but a club can release players they cant afford.The problem is budgets were excepted that were based on exagerated gate revenue in Corks case and champions league and domestic fantasy in Bohs case not to mention their magic pencil accounting, FAI dug this hole .
15/05/2009, 2:35 PM
GuisaSaigon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buile Shuibhne

Some of the Galway lads might be able to answer this one.

If a club has to release players to get below the 65% - can They just release players who are under contract. Obviously in the current climate there's not much hope of other clubs paying transfer fees or being able to match the wages that these players are on?

Can contracts be voided in these circumstances?

When we ran into similar trouble last season our players eventually agreed to take a pay cut. All players were free to leave the club if offers came in from other clubs. I believe that some players who left the club at the time made arrangements with the Galway United that some severance payments were made periodically after they joined their new clubs/pubs.

Legally clubs cannot just release players under contract without coming to an agreement with the player
15/05/2009, 2:37 PM
Mr A

In fairness to the FAI- they cannot dictate to private companies what they do, they can only punish them if they breach the guidelines at the end of the season.

And I'm not sure clubs can just release players they can't afford unless another club is willing to take them.
15/05/2009, 2:39 PM
RoversHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by niallsparky

In fairness to Brian Trench, he's only recently elected. Our new board have some big problems to fix. I do agree though that if we finish the season above the 65% threshold then there should be a severe punishment.

So its ok to be above 65% all season as long as the books look 65% at the end of the season, buisness as usual at Bohs so.By the way your magic pencil accounting which got you the licence never mind your title and champions league entry shoulda had you relegated already and may still do.you are cheats and yis know yis are just ask Mr Trench.
15/05/2009, 2:48 PM
CMcC

Ha ha - sounds like a school yard here. 'Yis are cheats !!!'
15/05/2009, 2:52 PM
RoversHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMcC

Ha ha - sounds like a school yard here. 'Yis are cheats !!!'

sorry for using an actual chant from some league of Ireland grounds i forgot this is foot.ie your just a grammar spammer in disguise.
15/05/2009, 9:33 PM
ashbournebohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoversHead

So its ok to be above 65% all season as long as the books look 65% at the end of the season, buisness as usual at Bohs so.By the way your magic pencil accounting which got you the licence never mind your title and champions league entry shoulda had you relegated already and may still do.you are cheats and yis know yis are just ask Mr Trench.

RoversHead .Did you lot ever get around to paying that launderette bill for cleaning your gear.Whats that saying eaten bread is quickly forgotten.
It is a well known fact that your club is only alive because of the co operation of other league clubs..When the time comes for us to wind Bohs up and form another club sorry company we will give you a ring for advice..
15/05/2009, 9:42 PM
Ezeikial

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashbournebohs

RoversHead .Did you lot ever get around to paying that launderette bill for cleaning your gear.Whats that saying eaten bread is quickly forgotten.
It is a well known fact that your club is only alive because of the co operation of other league clubs..When the time comes for us to wind Bohs up and form another club sorry company we will give you a ring for advice..

Perhaps you should have asked for his phone number....
15/05/2009, 9:51 PM
niallsparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoversHead

So its ok to be above 65% all season as long as the books look 65% at the end of the season

Eh yes. I don't see why not? Are you implying that Bohs accounts have been doctored in the past and been qualified wrongly as true by impartial arbitrators? You have a copy of the accounts yourself, what discrepancies have you managed to unearth that these trained auditors couldn't may I ask?
15/05/2009, 9:56 PM
Ezeikial

Quote:

Originally Posted by niallsparky

Eh yes. I don't see why not? Are you implying that Bohs accounts have been doctored in the past and been qualified wrongly as true by impartial arbitrators? You have a copy of the accounts yourself, what discrepancies have you managed to unearth that these trained auditors couldn't may I ask?

Ahem - the small issue of spending far more then you could afford!
15/05/2009, 10:11 PM
L.T.F.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niallsparky

Eh yes. I don't see why not? Are you implying that Bohs accounts have been doctored in the past and been qualified wrongly as true by impartial arbitrators? You have a copy of the accounts yourself, what discrepancies have you managed to unearth that these trained auditors couldn't may I ask?

there is such an air of ah-ha-I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you smarmriness from this post.
15/05/2009, 10:32 PM
Sidefx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

Ahem - the small issue of spending far more then you could afford!

Eh... people and glasshouses... ;)
15/05/2009, 10:52 PM
Ezeikial

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidefx

Eh... people and glasshouses... ;)

If by that pithy comment you mean that supporters of any club that is not running a surplus should not post here, then foot.ie is going to be a very lonely place.

There is an enormous difference between Ollie-esque overspending (and refusing to learn from mistakes) and a club that, recognising the possibility of a modest deficit arising in the future, calls on supporters for proactive assistance in fund raising.
15/05/2009, 11:00 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoversHead

The problem is budgets were excepted that were based on exagerated gate revenue in Corks case....

4000 at the cross tonight & should at least get that for Bohs in 2 weeks so its all good again.
15/05/2009, 11:03 PM
niallsparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.T.F.C.

there is such an air of ah-ha-I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you smarmriness from this post.

Pedantry.
15/05/2009, 11:11 PM
niallsparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

Ahem - the small issue of spending far more then you could afford!

Nobody is denying that. RoversHead seemed to be claiming that we presented our accounts in an untrue way to pass the 65% threshold deduced that we're cheats as a result of this.

This doesn't matter though, the fact is that we are in a bad financial position and we are breaking the 65% cap at this moment in time. The hands of the new board are tied though, as the players have already taken wage cuts and some players are on fairly long contracts. That leaves increasing revenue as the only option, unfortunately that's rather difficult also. Therefore, we must hope for a decent European run/League win or player transfer fees. This breach of the wage cap really doesn't matter if we're withing the regulations at season's end.
15/05/2009, 11:46 PM
brianw82

If things stay as they are, I'd imagine Carey will be going back to Celtic when his loan is up in July? Don't know if he'd be on a big wage or not, but it would make sense to let him go as they wouldn't be breaking any contracts.
16/05/2009, 12:10 AM
Ezeikial

Quote:

Originally Posted by niallsparky

Nobody is denying that. RoversHead seemed to be claiming that we presented our accounts in an untrue way to pass the 65% threshold deduced that we're cheats as a result of this.

This doesn't matter though, the fact is that we are in a bad financial position and we are breaking the 65% cap at this moment in time. The hands of the new board are tied though, as the players have already taken wage cuts and some players are on fairly long contracts. That leaves increasing revenue as the only option, unfortunately that's rather difficult also. Therefore, we must hope for a decent European run/League win or player transfer fees. This breach of the wage cap really doesn't matter if we're withing the regulations at season's end.

Thats a fairly depressing (if pragmatic) view of the current plight at Bohs. Hanging your hat "on a decent European run/League win or player transfer fees" as being the panacea for the short term, is perhaps a tad unrealistic.

While there have been loads of inferences of creative accounting by Bohs, what I can't get by head around is how the club permitted/endorsed the signings of Keegan, Shelley and Ndo at a time when it surely was totally tranparent that the numbers did not add up?

What changed since then to now?
16/05/2009, 12:35 AM
L.T.F.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niallsparky

Pedantry.

more fun saying it like i did.
16/05/2009, 10:34 AM
niallsparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

what I can't get by head around is how the club permitted/endorsed the signings of Keegan, Shelley and Ndo at a time when it surely was totally tranparent that the numbers did not add up?

What changed since then to now?

We had a squad of 12 before they came in. They're all on �1k per week or less and a contract of less than 1 year. Effectively it could be put, bring in these players and we'll likely win the league, covering their wages for the year or don't sign them and we probably won't win the league thus getting no prize money.
16/05/2009, 11:31 AM
Ezeikial

Quote:

Originally Posted by niallsparky

We had a squad of 12 before they came in. They're all on €1k per week or less and a contract of less than 1 year. Effectively it could be put, bring in these players and we'll likely win the league, covering their wages for the year or don't sign them and we probably won't win the league thus getting no prize money.

Now, I'm even more bewildered!

Are you justifying this strategy or simply suggesting that this was the warped thinking of the board?

Even to a reckless gambler outlaying circa €130,000 (say €1k x 44 weeks x 3 players) to increase the chances of winning the top prize of €280,000, seems like a bizarre punt. But when the gambler is already massively in debt, and is likely to breach the rules as a consequence (risking resultant relegation, european ban, and possible total financial meltdown), frankly it seems like the actions of the deranged and deluded.

It's a slightly moot issue, but your suggestion of only 12 players simply does not add up to me. The current first team squad numbers 18 and potentially up to 21 (if you including Sean Byrne, Paddy Madden and Brian McCarthy).

Help me here, I really trying to understand how Bohs have placed themselves in this situation
16/05/2009, 12:38 PM
niallsparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

Are you justifying this strategy or simply suggesting that this was the warped thinking of the board?

Even to a reckless gambler outlaying circa €130,000 (say €1k x 44 weeks x 3 players) to increase the chances of winning the top prize of €280,000, seems like a bizarre punt. But when the gambler is already massively in debt, and is likely to breach the rules as a consequence (risking resultant relegation, european ban, and possible total financial meltdown), frankly it seems like the actions of the deranged and deluded.

I can only presume that this was the boards thinking and despite it being a reasonably calculated gamble it's not really fair on the other clubs by putting the league's integrity at risk. Personally, I'd like to see us giving more younger players a chance. At present we have Ken Oman, Neale Fenn and Glenn Cronin as bench regulars when it should be the likes of Ryan McEvoy, Paddy Madden, Sean Byrne and Dean Marshall competing for these places.

I'm not sure of the exact terms of the wage cuts (whether they were in return for contract extensions) but by my calculations the contracts of Glen Crowe, Neale Fenn and Owen Heary are due to expire. These are 3 of the highest earners at the club and we should have some scope to further reduce the wage bill at the end of the year.

By the way, we brought in Gregg, Keegan, Ndo, Shelley and Carey so our sqaud size was 13 before that I think.
17/05/2009, 12:42 PM
Ezeikial

Quote:

Originally Posted by niallsparky

I can only presume that this was the boards thinking and despite it being a reasonably calculated gamble it's not really fair on the other clubs by putting the league's integrity at risk.

1) Resonable? Calculated? - you can't be serious

2) Not fair to intentional break the 65% rule? Is this not what people have referred to as cheating?
What about putting Bohemians integrity at risk?

Quote:

Originally Posted by niallsparky

I'm not sure of the exact terms of the wage cuts (whether they were in return for contract extensions) but by my calculations the contracts of Glen Crowe, Neale Fenn and Owen Heary are due to expire. These are 3 of the highest earners at the club and we should have some scope to further reduce the wage bill at the end of the year.

How will this have any impact on this seasons spending if their contracts expire in November?
18/05/2009, 11:18 AM
bohs til i die

The players contracts run until November, which is also the end of our financial year. If we are breaking the 65% wage cap by much then we will have to offload at least 2, possibly 4 players in July to get back in line because we simply wont increase revenue by enough to cover the difference. I dont think the embargo was imposed because we are operating at 70%. I would imagine the situation is far more serious then that.

The wage cuts at the start of the year were requested so we could sign 4-5 players and remain competitive. At the same time presumably, the board would have known the budgets were flawed, or else they were expecting our home crowds to be in the region of 3000 every time.

I dont envy the current board the choices they have to make.
18/05/2009, 1:02 PM
marinobohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Ah balls I'm mixing up my Cork and Bohs doom stories again....

suppose its better than concentrating on pats doom story:)
18/05/2009, 1:07 PM
marinobohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoversHead

So its ok to be above 65% all season as long as the books look 65% at the end of the season, buisness as usual at Bohs so.By the way your magic pencil accounting which got you the licence never mind your title and champions league entry shoulda had you relegated already and may still do.you are cheats and yis know yis are just ask Mr Trench.

Holy god ! and all that from a rovers fan. Really stupid preaching about magic pencil accounts when your club was found guilty of presenting fraudulant accounts to the Licencing committee (as you say CHEATS).

selective memory is a wonderful thing but it will not change the facts.
18/05/2009, 1:27 PM
pineapple stu

FFS, the fans reported the cheats, ousted them and took over.

When you lot do that, then you can talk.
18/05/2009, 1:44 PM
marinobohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

FFS, the fans reported the cheats, ousted them and took over.

When you lot do that, then you can talk.

I presume this was directed at me ( I thought you would know how to use the "quote" function by now). The fact is Bohs have NOT cheated and Rovers DID cheat. Let me know the part you are having difficulty understanding.
18/05/2009, 1:50 PM
pineapple stu

You don't need to quote every post you reply to; the fact that I posted straight after you should have been enough.

And congratulations on ignoring the entire point of my post. Feel free to address it at any stage.
18/05/2009, 2:12 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by marinobohs

I presume this was directed at me ( I thought you would know how to use the "quote" function by now). The fact is Bohs have NOT cheated and Rovers DID cheat. Let me know the part you are having difficulty understanding.

Cheating is entirely subjective.

What we can say is that Bohs are in breach of a compliance requirement. As were Rovers.
18/05/2009, 2:53 PM
marinobohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You don't need to quote every post you reply to; the fact that I posted straight after you should have been enough.

And congratulations on ignoring the entire point of my post. Feel free to address it at any stage.

Bohs are not cheats and have never been found to cheat. Rovers were found to submit false accounts. These are facts, if you can prove Bohemian FC has cheated then do so otherwise it is pointless speculation. accounts are done on an annualised basis (Bi annual if hoops) and as such one off payments (as at Pats and many other clubs) can make a big difference. Accordingly please wait until the end of the season before making allegations.
18/05/2009, 2:57 PM
El-Pietro

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoversHead

So its ok to be above 65% all season as long as the books look 65% at the end of the season, buisness as usual at Bohs so.By the way your magic pencil accounting which got you the licence never mind your title and champions league entry shoulda had you relegated already and may still do.you are cheats and yis know yis are just ask Mr Trench.

actually yes - you could be at 150% for every day of the season

but when the final numbers are in - if your wages are at 65% or less of your total income the rest of the season wont have mattered

its the same as being second all season, if you are top on the last day, thats all that mattered - ive a feeling though you wont grasp this, where are the ucd and shelbourne fans when you need them
18/05/2009, 2:57 PM
Mr A

Bohs in the past few years have been funded by the Danninger Deal, which according to the High Court was entered into by Bohs under false pretences.

I know there's an appeal ongoing, but that sounds like some form of cheating to me.
18/05/2009, 3:00 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Bohs are not cheats and have never been found to cheat. Rovers were found to submit false accounts. These are facts, if you can prove Bohemian FC has cheated then do so otherwise it is pointless speculation. accounts are done on an annualised basis (Bi annual if hoops) and as such one off payments (as at Pats and many other clubs) can make a big difference. Accordingly please wait until the end of the season before making allegations.

Define "cheating"?
18/05/2009, 3:04 PM
marinobohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr A

Bohs in the past few years have been funded by the Danninger Deal, which according to the High Court was entered into by Bohs under false pretences.

I know there's an appeal ongoing, but that sounds like some form of cheating to me.

I really doubt that the LOI rule book mentions Danninger or any other deal.The High court found in connection with a small piece of Dalymount not the whole ground, but hey dont let the facts get in the way...

If at the end of the season Bohs are in breach of the rules then the penalties will apply.Thank you for your concern and congrats that your club has nothing to worry about on the finance front.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21 PM.