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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albatross

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.

---

Although the land deal with Albion was not done with the purpose of circumventing the 65% rule, P Stu is correct that the monies received could be classed as income for the purposes of the 65% rule and could/did raise income levels accordingly. whether in the absence of this we would have fallen foul of 65% rule is a moot point as (presumably) we would have had to take other action to ensure compliance but on the figures at year end it is fair to say that sum kept us within the 65% rule parameters.

I am not sure if the rule has been amended (very much doubt it) As I understand it rules can be changed in Licencing process at short notice, sometimes without telling anyone :rolleyes:.

It would depend on who owned the money and how it was classed. If it was a loan or cash injection from the directors it could be classed as income. If it was just transferred from the club's own account then no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

It would depend on who owned the money and how it was classed. If it was a loan or cash injection from the directors it could be classed as income. If it was just transferred from the club's own account then no.

---

Money was income as it came from Albion (development company) to Bohs. The money was not previously property of Bohs or anyone assosiated with Bohs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Although the land deal with Albion was not done with the purpose of circumventing the 65% rule, P Stu is correct that the monies received could be classed as income for the purposes of the 65% rule and could/did raise income levels accordingly. whether in the absence of this we would have fallen foul of 65% rule is a moot point as (presumably) we would have had to take other action to ensure compliance but on the figures at year end it is fair to say that sum kept us within the 65% rule parameters.

I am not sure if the rule has been amended (very much doubt it) As I understand it rules can be changed in Licencing process at short notice, sometimes without telling anyone :rolleyes:.

---

Pure comedy gold.

I suspect that you have to search really hard to find a gullible (others then at Bohs) who would actually believe this.

business in possibly exploiting administrative loophole shocker!

Or, more accurately, Bohs fan in drastically understated and misleading financial comment bombshell.

Derry fan with hypocritical contribution regarding financial propriety of another club ...

(and so on) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Derry fan with hypocritical contribution regarding financial propriety of another club ...

(and so on) ;)

---

Headline: Foot.ie thread descends into worthless snip...oh right I see what you're getting at....

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.

---

Stu must be a civil servant, no need to have any financial acumen, he knows the f****n tax payer will always bail him out. The IMF are coming to get you!!

No, I'm an accountant, which is why I know you're talking crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

No, I'm an accountant, which is why I know you're talking crap.

---

That's interesting, I'm an accountant too so both of us must be right. If you take the time to read me comments properly you will see that we are both saying the same thing in different ways.

At the end of the day Bohs used the monies received for the ground to stay within the SCP

They did. However, the cash in hand part of your post was completely irrelevant. The SCP is based on income, not cash flow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albatross

That's interesting, I'm an accountant too so both of us must be right.

---

Is this why the country has ended up the way it has?

What's 2+2?

Whatever you want it to be so long as you pay the bill.

it was a number of reasons ranging from our accountantas not agreeing the way forward , our banks having two sets of books and our goverment not accepting we have no assests worth our liiabilities and and of course one man shows, all the same reasons our clubs continue to drag our league into the mire

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...s-2432995.html

Quote:

---

Wednesday November 24 2010

PFAI chief Stephen McGuinness believes that Bohemians and their contracted players remain miles apart in negotiations over redundancy packages, but he is unsure how relevant the November 30 deadline is, given the FAI's past record with respect to sanctions.
Bohs are trying to remove eight members of last year's squad from their wage bill by reaching a settlement to pay off the remainder of their deals. They also need to sort out unpaid wages to avoid being in breach of licensing.
That could jeopardise their Premier Division status for 2011, but McGuinness reckons that the real deadline of significance is next February when the committee sit down to hand out licenses.
Bohemians can bypass November and December deadlines if the players confirm they are in discussions about retrieving unpaid monies and sign an agreement to that effect.
The league authorities could hit the Gypsies with a retrospective points deduction that would affect their 2010 finishing position, but clubs haven't been punished in the past for failing to pay players on time.
"There are dates for this licensing that make the mind boggle," said the PFAI chief executive yesterday. "Person-ally, I don't think they mean anything. I think February 15 is the real date."
Certainly, a quick resolution at Dalymount Park appears out of the question. Bohs, who have resolved pressing issues with the Revenue Commissioners, are set to meet the PFAI later this week to reveal how much money they have raised to offer the players.
The individuals in question have a year left on their deals. Bohs have spoken about paying 13 weeks' wages to each player concerned to sever their ties; the players are looking for approximately 26 weeks.
"The 13 weeks is not acceptable," said McGuinness. "To ask anyone to rip up an employment contract, at this moment in time, in any job, is a hell of an ask. If there were full-time professional contracts out there for the players, I think they would do deals. But, at the moment, there's nothing out there for them."

---

13 weeks is pretty decent. The players would need to be careful they don't kill the club and get nothing.

Agreed. The average joe soap would only get around 2 weeks pay for every year they worked at a company if they get made redundant so 13 weeks pay is not bad on that aspect and how can Bohs pay out money they dont have.?
One thing though,employment laws may not apply in the footballing world as if you get made redundant from a company that company cant employ anyone else to do the job that you was doing at a lower rate.
The players will get nothing if Bohs go bang so maybe its best to take the money and run knowing that unlike the average man on the street who gets let go ,footballers have a greater chance of finding alternative employment with other clubs home or abroad quick enough.

The average Joe Soap isn't on a fixed contract, though, and they aren't out of work at the end of that fixed period. The players are entitled to the full value of their contracts so 26 weeks (presuming there are 52 weeks left on the contract) is hardly unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

13 weeks is pretty decent. The players would need to be careful they don't kill the club and get nothing.

---

They'll be listed as creditors and will receive their money if Bohs have to be liquidated (Dalymount will pay for it all)