Pat Fenlon coud doubtless tell you a lot about cycnical blazer moves from his days as a Shelbourne Manager....Quote:
Originally Posted by BohDiddley
Pat Fenlon coud doubtless tell you a lot about cycnical blazer moves from his days as a Shelbourne Manager....Quote:
Originally Posted by BohDiddley
So you've taken a simple statement that the Youth section cost 130k to run, and also brought in 110k in income, and somehow concluded that it proves that Bohs are cooking the books? Unbelieveable.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulaHoop
As for the other point - Yes, as far as I know money spent in most areas doesn't count towards the SCP whereas all Income does. That's not against the rules, it's not even a dodgy area.
Bohs have been guilty of irresponsible spending for sure, nobody can deny that. There's a genuine danger that it catches up with them in the future if it's not addressed properly - something they do actively seem to be trying to do especially over the last 6 months or so.
That's why it's rather unfortunate that Rovers have chosen to act in this manner. I just can't get my head around the fact that there's someone in the Rovers organisation that has so little self respect that they could bring themselves author and send this letter.
If there's nothing to it, why are the Bohs fans getting their knickers in such a twist? Even if there is something to it, does anyone expect the FAI to act? tbh, the most telling part is that, to me anyway, it looks like bohs fans are actually bricking it...
Couldnt agree more with that last post.
Also how ironic is it that Bohs fans are making a big song and dance about whistle blowing and bitterness when not very long ago they were doing there level best to have Shamrock Rovers reprimanded for alleged Racism, sending letters to SARI, demanding points deductions and ground closures and generally taking the moral high ground over unproven allegations (let us not forget that this was at a time when Bohs were second in the table and the very real possibility of not winning a league they had BUDGETED TO WIN was staring them in the face). Hypocrites!
I commend Shamrock Rovers for calling the FAI's bluff here, id even suggest that there is more than just Rovers behind it, probably a few more clubs, far more beneficial to the media to make it a Bohs V Rovers issue though!
No and I dont think anyone does either - other than those who so so desperately want it to be. If it raises questions so be it. Let the FAI bring it on. Evidence proves something - this doesnt get even close. The point Rovers fans were making re the tape of the monkey noises at Ndo was the very same (other then the idiot who said it was a doctored clip !!). Rovers sais it proved nothing. And after the investigation Rovers say it proved it didnt happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
The transfer embargo was the kick up the hole by the FAI who were monitoiring the Bohs accounts and expenditure and a way for them to say they need to take serious emergency action if they are to get under the 65%. Bohs had to drastically cut expenditure in one foul swoop or massively increase income rapidly. Something I believe was done due to a huge effort from ordinary fans over the last number of months. Thats my (admittedly limited) understanding, maybe I am mistaken. I'm sure you can correct me.
At this point while we agree it should have been the FAI initiating this type of invetigation or questioning and certainly not through the national press I believe most Bohs fans I have spoken to are relaxed about it. Certainly not bricking it like another poster says. What will be will be. I have consistently said if rules are broken then Bohs have to take what would be coming. If not then nothing to see here people.
The knickers in a twist element always comes into it when its your biggest rivals on and off the pitch who are seen to be meddling in your affairs or stirring the crap - whatever the issue whether its on the field issues or off them. Dont be mistaken into thinking its anything else.
From the indoQuote:
Originally Posted by Leejo
Shamrock Roovers have also asked for answers as to how the cost for Bohs' underage teams grew from €15,000 in '07 to €130,000 in '08
You are very naive lee-jo. Its a con hiding wages in coaching. If thats a method of avoiding the 65% and is found to be illegal , dont come on here crying about bitter shamrock rovers fans.
There is no doubt that there are some questions that Bohs should be made answer, and some of their answers may be very interesting indeed. It's hard for me to imagine how they'll justify some of the figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by theneutral
That said, let's not pretend even for a second that this has been brought to the attention of the FAI and the media "for the good of the league".
I dont doubt Rovers have selfish intentions at heart by raising this complaint but i think its fair to say that it will be to the benefit of the league (and Bohemians aswell) if Bohs are reeled in.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
It's obviously been brought to the attention of the FAI in the hope that they act, hopefully ensuring that in future Rovers can enter into contract negotiations on a fair footing with other clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Certainly it's a selfish motive, but it's also clearly for the good of the league if fiddling is put an end to. Thats if any exists of course.
More shoddy moderating, allowing an unfounded lie to be presented as fact. Mark Rossiter has one contract - for playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by sligored
As for the jump in figures, the state of our youth section pre-08 is explained in a link in my post on the previous page. The breakdown for schoolboy expenditure in 08 was roughly: 70k to Umbro (40k on training gear, 20k on match kits and 10k on equipment), 40k on Youth Development officer (which in the previous year was included under the technical staff heading) and 20k to DCU. The 110k income from the schoolboys section comes from subs, kids paying for kit, separate shirt sponsorship, summer soccer camps, UEFA grant etc. As far as I know the income side is not filed under a specific schoolboy section heading (instead sucked into different appropriate income headings) but there are schoolboy section-specific accounts which I'm sure will be made available to the FAI.
Not getting my knickers in a twist, I've explained to the best of my ability all the unfounded allegations thrown at the club (here: http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=96 ). Why I bothered, I'm not so sure. I'm just very disappointed with Shamrock Rovers on this one. I respected the professionalism and hard work of their board, but this is just pettiness. Our accounts have been available (and on the Rovers message board!!) since February, if they really thought we had a case to answer, they would have brought our figures to the attention of the FAI then. I'm certainly not bricking it either, there is no case to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
The next set of accounts from Bohs will be interesting :)
It's one thing to say Rovers are bitter and at least explain why. It's thing to dismiss a post as bitter with no explanation. That's what's against the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohDiddley
I imagine that, as the 65% rule is to be examined at the end of the season only, there ws no point raising the issues until now. The concern isn't necessarily over last year's accounts, but over the probability that this year's accounts will show the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordned
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
No-one got any such infraction. Such twisting of the truth isn't surprising, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeO
In general, though, what Dodge said. Bohs fans are digging a hole for themselves, to be honest. It's a perfectly valid thread based on a newspaper article, and it's not going to be closed just because Bohs fans don't like it. I think Bohs fans are coming out of this particularly badly, tbh. The questions being posed are perfectly reasonable, and BohDiddley/Charlie Haughey's post in the first page sums up the Bohs fans' responses to date.
I think it's interesting that fans of every club bar Bohs to have posted on the thread are in broad agreement with what has been done (even if it may be unfortunate that it's Rovers who've done it).
I've binned those posts which could be summed up as "You're bitter".
Ok BYCTWD let me put it this way. I have tried to engage with you (mainly) in a contructive manner on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
1. I am saying no such thing! How you can get that out of what I say proves the blinkers are well and truely on here.
2. How do you make that one out?
I will reiterate my original point because I think its been lost on you. Let the FAI ask the questions. What will be after that will be. Is that not good enough for you?
Let me also say that I am not an forensic accountant. Querying how much a company pays for goods or services - because in your opinion its too high - doesnt, in my opinion provide evidence of a fraud happening. But I am not an accountant. Thats my rather simplistic view of things. You can choose to take that or not. What it may suggest is that management of the club hasnt been as prudent or penny wise as it should have been - but the dogs on the street have been saying that. The new board seem to be much more agressive in tackling this issue since they went in.
Either way it doesnt matter what you or I or other members of this forum think or choose to believe. What will ultimately matter is what the FAI think come the time for handing out licences. Now you can choose to accept their findings at that point, much like you chose to accept the findings of their racism investigation or you can cry fudge fudge fudge. But as a suggestion maybe we should let it play out as otherwise its all guesswork, accusation, mud slinging and allegations here.
I think mission accomplished for Rovers: They got their air time in a 'we are the only ones playing with a straight bat' kinda way and therefore I'm sure the FAI will be suitably rigorous in their dealings with Bohs re their licencing obligations.
This thread is turning into a farce.Quote:
Originally Posted by EnglishSource
There are several bohs members who are accountants who questioned the schoolboy figures. Members were given a print out with exactly were all the money went.
Apart from trying to win the title in such a bitter way I wonder is this appeal based on the fact Rovers approached out of contract bohs players to sign for them, but they all turned them down to stay at Bohs.
15,000 to 130,000 in the space of a year down to a lack of prudence? Don't fool yourself. Presumably the issue will be tackled though and so Bohs will save 115,000 on that alone this year :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
Rovers are bitter, and Bohs have done wrong. Two things thatI don't think either can deny, no matter how hard they try.
I don't think anyone is asking you to close it, but some moderation would not go amiss. How you can allow unfounded posts claiming that Mark Rossiter is paid as a coach/barman/ballboy stay up is beyond me. He is paid as a player - end of.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I've responded to the allegations in as simple a way as possible, in a way that the keyboard warriors here might actually be able to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Yes they did, BohsPartisan got an infraction for this:
"John83 - that's a ridiculous implication to take from what I said. Its the fact the Gardaí treat fans like cattle that's the problem. I'm aware you won't have that problem at UCD seeing as there are so few of you so it would be hard to understand." In short, for saying that UCD have a small fanbase.
Basic breakdown of 130k here http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p...&postcount=109 . A more detailed version will be available to FAI (not to a Foot.ie trial by keyboard warriors, though) if they have not seen it already, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by kd16
Bohs claims to have spent so much on schoolboy kit seem a bit weird considering Umbro witheld the new Bohs away kit as a result of Bohs not having paid them!
Thread hardly a farce Wexfordned, plenty of valid points being raised, i think Pineapple Stu summed it up quite well tbh.
Yes and they too are basing it on rumour that has been flying around since he joined Bohs. I'll repeat: Mark Rossiter has one contract - for playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
I never said that increase was down to a lack of financial prudence. I said its a well known fact that Bohs have not been prudernt in general when they should have. I'm sure this will be explained to the FAI by Bohs. I believe a post somewhere up the thread also covers this off.Quote:
Originally Posted by kd16
"Conway accepted the schoolboys outlay was steep but said the club forked out 60,000 in 2008 on kitting out teams"
If the net cost to Bohs of running the schoolboys was only 20K, then why is he admitting the "outlay was steep"?
Did Bohs declare the 110K raised by the schoolboys section in their main accounts as income alongside 130K spent in the area as expenses.
Or did they just declare the net 20K subsidy to the schoolboys as an expense?
If any club had an 110K extra income on the books would entitle them to spend an extra 65% of 110K = 71K on first team players wages and in effect help bypass the spirit of the 65% rule!
bhs
There is no point in using logic in your arguments with all the rumours & bulls**t been thrown around (Unmoderated I might add!).Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeO
As previous posters said Rovers have used the media for a bit of PR to show themselves as an example to everyone & get a dig at their rivals Bohs.
I've already said the 110k was included in other headings that weren't specific to the schoolboys section but that separate accounts specific to the schoolboys section are available to the FAI if they have any query in relation to its income/expenditure.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackholesun
Bypass the spirit of the 65% rule? :confused: ALL income counts towards the 65% rule.
Yeah, and Bohs tried to stir up a nice racism story on Rovers looking for points deduction/matches behind closed doors. Ye are as bad as each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordned
Nothing will happen to bohs anyway, the only hope is that the FAI tighten the 65% rule so much that this accusation can't be levelled anyway. That's no doubt a forlorn hope, but still.
Don't then. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
The thread will go round in circles until the FAI come out and say something definitive.
To do that, they will have to prove that Bohs went beyond breaking the spirit of the legislation, and actually broke the rules. This will be difficult, but not impossible.
I've no problem with Rovers dragging it into public view, as the worst case scenario is that the rules around application of the cap gets tightened up going forward.
I'm not particularly bothered by the Rossiter allegation as I know it to be untrue but it just shows the double standards in how things are moderated here. It's a serious allegation which effectively accuses Bohs and Mark Rossiter of fraud, all based on unfounded rumours. If Bohs/Rossiter were that way inclined, they could easily sue Foot.ie for allowing such allegations appear and, worse, for not taking them down.
Bahhhh...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Who said Rovers Leaked it Philip Quinn is a lifelong Bohs Fan and I wouldnt put it past the Bohs Board or Certain Members from Leaking this to try and make Rovers look the Villians in this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeO
I certainly dont want to slander mark rossiter but i am getting very mixed responses here. Does anyone know if he has a contract for coaching with bohemians football club?Quote:
Originally Posted by Leejo
Would it not be great if Sligo employed chris turner and raf cretaro as coaches for the coming season and then we could really make our club successful but in time bankrupt?
Not saying that bohs would do something like that
A small piece in today's Irish Mail saying that Bohs officials attended a meeting with the FAI on Wednesday night in Abbottstown and linking it with the story on Rovers raising the issue of Bohs accounts.
Maybe the FAI are looking into it?
In that case, Ladies and Genltemen, I give you the future of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
He doesn't. Whether you choose to believe me is up to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sligored
Absolutely love this thread, the indignation of Bohs fans is hilarious. All the more so when you think back to the mock outrage, feigned hysteria and their mass campaign to have Rovers punished (fined, docked points, kicked out of Tallaght, behind closed doors, relegated, etc etc) for alledged racism.
I do see where they're coming from claiming that this stems from Rovers bitterness, but when you consider the above, its more enjoyable to laugh at them than side with them.
To me, its blatantly obvious there is something amiss with the Bohs figures. Their fans posting here would be better off saying nothing, as they're coming off worse by a mile.
I don't like the idea of clubs squealing on eachother but if the means justifies the end, then so be it.
I think whoever said the thread is chasing its tail had it right. Shamrock have had their spiteful day and no racism-minimising equivalence with the SARI-endorsed complaint is going to change that.
I also agree that Bohs fans are on a hiding to nothing trying to reason with a baying mob when unsubstantiated allegations are tolerated. (Sorry Luke. I know you've been playing a blinder ;).)
Where we should have discussion, we now have farce. It's up to the FAI now to give the penalty or else card the diver.
Erm, no. To me it's all about defending the reputation of my club who have had crazy accusations accused of them. I look forward to an honest apology to all those who have said that Bohs have cheated and cooked the books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
How are you getting mixed responses? I refuted your ridiculous claims that he ONLY gets paid as a coach and told you for a fact that he is on a part time contract and that I genuinely didn't know if he is contracted as a coach as well as a player. Since then Lukeo has come out and said he has one contract - as a player and I'd be very inclined to believe him, he'd be in a better position to answer than me and he'd be very much a man in the know.Quote:
Originally Posted by sligored
Allegation http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p...1&postcount=80. That's funny, I always thought Sligored was a Sligo Rovers fan. Must be his name and avater that threw me though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Show me a post where a Bohs fan says in simple terms Mark Rossiter get's paid as a coach not a player.
Edit - Before you go ahead and point the finger at me, my post here http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p...5&postcount=81 does not say he is only paid as a coach not a player. It says he might be paid as a coach AND a player, it was a rumour I heard and chose to neither ignore nor deny it. It has since been brought to my attention by someone who would know (not Lukeo) that he has one contract - as a player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sligored
So you posted saying he's getting paid as a coach as if it was fact and now you're asking does anyone know if he has a coaching contract?Quote:
Originally Posted by sligored
So obviously you're just guessing then?
It works for Shamrock. Just make the allegation. Mud will stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
Fair enough on the Mark Rossiter point. I'm not around mostentimes this weekend so don't have time to go through the thread in full detail. You should know by now to report any post with which you have a problem rather than whine in thread, where it'll get missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeO
However, while the questions are valid in general, any more speculation on whether Mark Rossiter is paid for coaching or playing or running the bar or whatever will be deleted unless it's backed up. I trust that's a fair compromise.
Nope, he got an infraction for dismissing John83's post purely because he was a UCD fan, which is against the rules. Perhaps you should read up on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeO
What allegation have Rovers made?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohDiddley
I'm not trying to get the thread closed by any stretch of the imagination. All I asked for was for some moderation. Allegations should not be allowed to be presented as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD