Bohs in financial trouble - FAI Licencing called into question again?

I have all the respect for all the fans that is working hard to raise money to save the club and was willing to give a few quid when asked earlier but i refused when the chap that was collecting money made his feelings known about Sporting Fingal in a disrespectful manner. Its fair enough if the chap dislikes Fingal but when he is trying to raise some funds isnt the time to make them feelings known. If i get approached again then i'd have no bother giving them a few quid in support of them being saved and be in the league next year .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Horse

In other words:

"Bohemians have failed to pay the tax bill due to the Revenue this week. They hope that the Revenue will take pity on them and allow the liability to be carried forward".

---

Businesses all over the country are defaulting on tax payments. It's standard practice for revenue to give a bit of leeway. Especially considering we have always been up to date with our payments before.

"I think the revenue would be happy with any payment from a big creditor these days"
How big is big? Anyone know the Bohs tax liability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

I think the Revenue would be happy with any payment from a big creditor these days. Negotiation is par for the course in these situations - they've been pretty flexible with individuals recently and I'd imagine large companies would be given as much or more leeway.

---

I'd imagine they'd be flexible once Bohs can convince them they are cutting costs back enough they can pay Revenue off over 12 or 24 months. Of course if Bohs have a crap team next year their income will fall so it's a vicous circle.

Hopefully Revenue won't decide to liquidate in order to get their hands on the ground to clear the debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Especially considering we have always been up to date with our payments before.

---

Why have your recent accounts shown a significant charge to "Interest on overdue tax" so?

I hope they do give leeway, but considering Cowens just agreed a huge EU bailout (slightly less than 100 billion euro :rolleyes:) My bet is the Revenue will be after the keys to Dalymount. Has there been any progress with the 14 still under contract?

The bailout is irrelevant here - the Revenue doesn't really answer to the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

The bailout is irrelevant here - the Revenue doesn't really answer to the government.

---

Spot on CD. Revenue is independent of Govt ( it is called "Commission" because it has an independant board and does not report on day to day activities to a Minister). There is provision in revenue legislation for staggered payments of arrears and it would be nothing unusual. I do recall that the interest rate charged was prohibitive so deferral is not a good idea (some years since I worked there so may be changed).
There is however a much harder line taken than there was when shams ran into trouble and any possibility of a "4%" type deal is extremely unlikely so it will be up to Bohs to convince Revenue they can stick to an agreed payment shedule or else......
This change has nothing to do with the current financial difficulties in the country and much more to do with Rev Comm getting sick of LOI clubs defaulting on tax payments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albatross

Just Catching up on this Thread, The explanation for Bohs staying within the SCP can be seen in the Accounts filed with the CRO. Bohs had 2M in the bank after receiving monies for Dalymount. In 2008 1M was used to stay within the SCP again the same in 2009. 2M now gone, no funds to rely on for this year so now they are in financial trouble. Simple really but very foolish.

---

Just saw this by the way; it's complete nonsense. Cash in the bank doesn't count towards the 65% rule. Bohs received a payment for the ground in 2008 and 2009, which was added in to their income, so meaning they could spend more. And in 2009, they basically stayed under 65% by buying and selling the same bit of land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Just saw this by the way; it's complete nonsense. Cash in the bank doesn't count towards the 65% rule. Bohs received a payment for the ground in 2008 and 2009, which was added in to their income, so meaning they could spend more. And in 2009, they basically stayed under 65% by buying and selling the same bit of land.

---

Has that loophole been closed though? Surely a club who were really suicidal could always find a creative way to overpay their players, and still technically stay below the cap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

Has that loophole been closed though? Surely a club who were really suicidal could always find a creative way to overpay their players, and still technically stay below the cap

---

two contracts. and pray they don't talk.

Well, Bohs were only under 65% if you add in the E150k they got from selling the option on the ground, which they'd just bought back (exact details in the accounts). So the loophole was evidently there last year anyway; don't know if it's been closed since, but I doubt it.

So yes, a really suicidal club has plenty of ways and means still.

Wipe that jizz of your computer screen Stu

Bohs statement saying they've paid the revenue for October:

http://www.bohemians.ie/news/4-club-...ment-made.html

No mention again of how much was paid, so we can probably assume it wasn't the full E105k.

FINANCIAL REPORTING

An interesting commentary on how the Football Conference rides shotgun on its member clubs:-


http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=9992


Is there any prospect of the National League clubs becoming subject to such a regime and in particular to an attitude from the governing body of “taking no prisoners in affecting sanctions towards those that do not play ball.”
It would certainly make a change from the current attitude of “look the other way and it’ll be all right in the end”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

No mention again of how much was paid, so we can probably assume it wasn't the full E105k.

---

Yep, down payment and discussions on a payment shedule as far as I know (dont know down payment)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Just saw this by the way; it's complete nonsense. Cash in the bank doesn't count towards the 65% rule. Bohs received a payment for the ground in 2008 and 2009, which was added in to their income, so meaning they could spend more. And in 2009, they basically stayed under 65% by buying and selling the same bit of land.

---

Of cource Cash in bank is not counted as income for 65% rule but it does become income in the accounts when it is transferred to P&L as Misc. Income rather than sale of Property as was done in 2008 and 2009. If you take the time to look at the accounts for 2007 the club had cash reserves of 2M by the end of 2009 the reserves were gone with no capital expenditure. Therefore the 2M the club got was used to stay within the SCP. That's all I said. Depending on the Memo and Articals of Association, only if the club is constituted to trade in property can the revenue be used as income.

No, the cash is gone because they lost it. Your post makes no sense. The SCP works on the P&L, not cash. The cash flow works on cash, but isn't the basis for the SCP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

No, the cash is gone because they lost it. Your post makes no sense. The SCP works on the P&L, not cash. The cash flow works on cash, but isn't the basis for the SCP.

---

I love it when you talk dirty Stu! ;)