Contract with DANNINGER. High Court case with ALBION, try and keep up :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HulaHoop
Printable View
Contract with DANNINGER. High Court case with ALBION, try and keep up :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HulaHoop
Incidentally, as you repeat that, have you a link to show that Bohs have dropped their Supreme Court appeal?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
i think its a case of a lot of wishful thinking .... on both sides
Incidently does a deal have to be completed before the financial submissions deadline
You can be forgiven for concluding that the previous few pages relate to the SCP, they don`t.Quote:
Originally Posted by passerrby
The potential "deal " with Albion has no impact on the 2009 SCP or on financial projections for the 2010 SCP . It may however have future financial benefit for the club in that it would ensure that the Danninger deal is unencumbered and can proceed if Danninger has the funds (unlikely as that might be.) In the event that Danninger cannot proceed it will be a matter for the club to consider other offers, one of which may be from Albion.
Not what the article posted by debowez previously in the thread says -Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalymountrower
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sun
But Bohs will know either way. They'l be well aware of money in and money out and it's a fairly straightforward thing to calculate 65% of it and know if your under.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
"The Sun" is hardly the paper of record, there was absoloutely no connecton with the SCP made by those club officials proposing a settlement with Albion. There may, if an arrangement is concluded with Albion, be consequential income to be taken into account in future calculations of future SCP`s.
Through the hard work and financial contributions made by members supporters players and club employees and stunning successes on the field of play, we just about made it under the wire on the 65%. Get over it.
As for next season, I would say that meeting the new SCP arrangement will be difficult for us but will be acheivable. If there is some arrangement finalised with a purchaser of Dalymount which can legitimately be counted as income in accordance with the SCP in 2010,then obviously that will make acheiving the SCP a lot easier.
Ah now. The tabloids are usually very good with regards LoI rumours. I don't think you can dismiss an article just because it's in The Sun. If you have other reasons, feel free to put them out there, but you can't dismiss things just like that. Or are you accusing the paper of deliberately misrepresenting the Bohs EGM?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalymountrower
No, I`m just stating that they mistakenly mixed up two quite seperate matters. Admittedly its a complex set of issues which at times has confused even the most assiduous posters on the topic on this site;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I would agree that the Sun does have a track record of reporting rumours as facts.
I attended the said EGM and know what was proposed.
Sorry Stu, don't have a link (and not aware of one) but it was mentioned at the EGM that the new arrangement would take away the need for an appeal (Thank God, judging on our form in the Courts :() I expect it would be included in the terms of the agreement with Albion when finalised.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I doubt very much they 'got it wrong'. Id imagine they chose to ignore it and subsequently got punished.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
This time however, if they choose to ignore it, the embargo wont (shouldnt) be lifted therefore theyll be paying money to players that cant play.
None of that means they dont know one way or another, its still quite easy to work out 65%.
1) They know they are under the 65% therfore are signing players
2) They know they are over the 65% are signing players anyway in a show of financial recklessness Tom Coughlan would be proud of and hoping for the best.
Either way they know one way or another if there accountants(or anyone with a calculator) can count.
When will the FAI decide if teams were under the 65% SCP for the season just finished? And when will/did the relevant paperwork have to be submitted? Is/was it possible to alter/amend the paperwork after the deadline has passed?
I'm pretty sure there's a meeting coming up on Monday to do with some aspect of licensing.... Could be wrong though
That comes under 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Have the FAI even sat down to discuss this mess yet? Last years SCP etc?
Do you know when the embargo was to be lifted? Is there some sort of meeitng the FAI have to pour over the books to come to that decision? If so when is/was that scheduled please? And when are announcements of their findings scheduled to be made public?Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
what recommendations did the league make on the 22nd of December and to whom? And can you disclose the nature of the recommendations made on the 22nd of December and if you could provide a link that would be great too.
Also, you were coming out with this definitive line (embargo will not be lifted for Bohs) well prior to December 22nd so was that all a big steaming pile of sh**e too like the rest of the guff you spout?
Linky.
*Waits for some manner of apologies from Bohs fans...*
so where does that say that the embargo will not be lifted for Bohemians which is BY's claim?
BYCTWD's claim is that the embargo hasn't been lifted. He's correct, it seems.
The link doesn't say it won't be lifted, but it does a hell of a lot more to back up his posts on the topic so far than Bohs fans'.
no, his claim has always been that Bohemians will not have the transfer embargo lifted.
And the link itself doesnt amount to much - importantly there are no quotes from the FAI. Maybe the Star article goes into more detail, gives sources and quotes, i dont know.
What would be interesting is if any other clubs who were placed under transfer embargo (im pretty sure we werent the only ones) have had theirs lifted. Then i would start to get concerned as to whether we were in trouble after all.
i dont have time to go trawling through previous threads (well i do have the time, just not the inclination) to show you what you have said in the past - thats what got me so aggravated in the past. If you are changing your tune now to suit what you now believe, then thats fine. Just wanted to clarify.
Im 32.
You claimed that Bohs would not get the transfer embargo lifted, that we would be docked points and relegated if we were lucky. You've changed that now. Problem?
This smacks of Shels all over again. Drawing down buckets of cash for operating expenses against a declining asset. Whatever about the short-term (SCP for 2010) the medium to longer term doesn't look rosy.
Yet another case of spectacularly inept LoI financial mismanagement.
I don't know why you bother Stu. There's a fair number of posters on this MB waiting/willing/sniffing blood in the shadows of Dalymount Park for a long time. Funnily enough, most of them support clubs that have gone through their own "difficulties" in recent times.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I distinctly get the impression that these people spend nights with their hands down the front of their jocks, squeezing their eyes ever so tightly and hoping that the day Bohs get DONE is not too far away. It's the giddy excitement and tone of their posts and the immediate nature of their questioning of all things related to Bohs off the field matters that really shines through.
The fact that everything they don't understand (which is quite I lot I might add) about the inner workings of our club has to be explained off with allegations of underhandedness and conspiracies only serves to underline their want for Bohemians failure.
You and LukeO have explained more than they deserve explained to them. Yet they choose to ignore what is fact and counter with conspiracy and conjecture. Leave them to it I say.
How long will it take whoever buys Dalymount to find land ,get planning,deal with objections and build a ground?How will Bohs finance their existance till then?Will NAMA just write off the money that the shoebox king gave Bohs?If you can answer these questions then you can lay claim to understanding the inner workings of your club but control of your own destiny I think not.
(1)As long as it takes (a matter for developer as Bohs not seeking to build). (2)The same way all other clubs will.(3) AGAIN Bohs are not in breach of contract so why would Danninger/NAMA be owed money ?, According to most on here Danninger will be the ones to breach contract, Are you really so stupid to believe they could claim money from Bohs for THEM breaching contract ?Quote:
Originally Posted by RoversHead;1300767[B
There now, questions answered. Incidentally Assets V Liabilities, Bohs are far healthier finanacially than most clubs (including the much lauded Shams)
You will finance yourselves the same way all other clubs will? Now that's a lie. To date, you've been financing yourselves by drawing down from Liam Carroll (something I think you'll agree not all clubs are doing) and racking up a massive loan balance (so far in excess of other clubs that it doesn't even compare). Unless that's going to change radically (and the signings announced show no sign that it will), Bohs are not financing themselves the same way other clubs are.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
That's irrelevant though. Cash is king, and you're far poorer than all other clubs in that regard. Dalymount only comes into the equation if you do something silly like sell your ground to pay wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
It really does. And you forgot to mention the fans saying no-one outside the club really knows what's going on, and all our suppositions are wrong and the board know exactly what they're doing and there's a plan in place. Sounds exactly like Shels fans in 2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Interesting that you posted so frequently in the past concerning drawing a line under what other clubs did "in the past" but apply different criteria here (the use of "will" indicates going forward).Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
bohs do not make the rules regarding eligable expenditure simply have to (hopefully) work within them. We do not, for example, have a College supplying us with facilities/scholorships either - each club has pro's and con's but again you distinguish between Bohs "and other clubs" as if everyone else is the same. Strange.
To ignore a major asset in calculating the value of any business enterprise shows ignorance of any basic accounting procedures. Even without selling the asset is useful as leverage and in providing a guarantee for creditors (for example) - club less likely to disappear.
I indicated that I don't see how Bohs are going to show any major change between the recent past and the immediate future. If it's obvious that there is a major change, then your point is valid. But that's not the case here. As far as can be seen, Bohs intend to keep going the way they have been.
We don't have scholarships supplied to us; the club has to pay for them.
And LOL at you giving me (a qualified accountant) an accountancy lecture. It is not good practice use an asset vital to your existence to run up a debt of E4m. All having the ground means you're unlikely to go under, but it means you'll have to pay off all your debts when the time comes, by which stage you'll be homeless and have a much reduced budget in future. Just like Shels.
Is it usual that a major asset would be ignored (or classed irrelevant) in valuing a business entity ?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Various Bohs contributors here have indicated that the club has changed its approach to expenditure on wages going forward. sorry but will not put figures in such a public demain so you will just have to wait and see ;)
What's business valuation got to do with anything? We're looking at viability. And in that case, yes, you should ignore anything that it would be downright stupid to sell. In fact, you should be looking more at your current ratio, which explicitly excludes fixed assets.
To be fair pineapple, all that article says is that the FAI havent even completed going through the accounts yet to come to their decision. It doesnt say anything more than that. People will take what they want out of it and they will - especially on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
LOL at you calling somebody's prediction for the future (however unlikely you think it is) a "lie".Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Touché!
Your phrasing is better alright. Although the future's not a perfect unknown.
Agreed, and I'd share your concerns that visible signs don't seem to suggest much change.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The fact that the embargo hasn't been lifted after the recommendations to the licencing committee on Dec 22nd may not be as significant as som are making out - the normal procedure for acting on recommendations may still be taking place - under FAI governance we've become accustomed to things taking a long time to be decided and become public knowledge. In my opinion the link does not suggest irregularities of cause for concern as a reason for any delay, rather just gives procedure.
Bohs fans claim that by hard work they've scraped under the 65%, and to some that is a fanciful claim. But I don't think we can do anything except wait and see.
Yep, technically no club budgets have been agreed todate. Belief at Bohs is that we did comply with the 65% rule for 2009 and there has been no indication that this is not valid, if other people know different then I will be happy to stand corrected on presentation of facts (as opposed to speculation). I understand that the next week should see an acceptance or rejection of the recommendations (by the FAI) so we should FINALLY know one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I think - to get back on topic - what it suggests is the following -Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
> Bohs were put under an embargo in May or June because of overspending as revealed in their monthly management accounts. Presumably it was a acse of the FAI saw the April accounts towards the end of May, saw they were over 65% and immediately slapped on an embargo.
> The embargo hasn't been lifted, which means that at no stage since have they come back under 65%
> Presumably the November accounts were what was submitted on 22 December. The only things in there which will really get Bohs under 65% are the prize money for winning the league and the E1m from the Albion deal. The FAI may, I suppose, also consider whether transfer fees agreed in November (Murphy for example, or was he a free?) but not recieved till Jan can count.
> Presumably again, if they are over the 65%, the FAI will keep the transfer embargo in place until they come back under the 65%, which could only be in March, having not signed any of the players they currently have agreements with. If they make it under 65%, all the players sign and off they go.
> Bohs may also cut costs next year, and fair play if they do, but it's not going to affect the 2009 figures.
To use your own vernacular, "thats a lie".Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Do expand, genuinely.
If Bohs were over the 65% in October (as they seem to have been), what will bring them under the 65% in November?
Without knowing how much they were over the 65% SCP it is difficult to speculate as to what income needs to be generated in order to bring them under it.