Bohs exceeding 65%?

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niallsparky

Pedantry.

---

more fun saying it like i did.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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:)

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.

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

When you lot do that, then you can talk.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"?

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.