Bohs Court Case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:

---

Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

The deal you got for McCourt (400k all in?) was needed to keep the banks at bay, and there's money owed to other clubs (Dungannon mentioned for one), so the money owed to UCD isn't the full extent of your problems. I'd suggest you go off and ask questions about Derry's financial situation before commenting again. And there's not many deals between eL clubs that have exceeded E30k either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

€30k is not a "massive" sum of money in Irish football. Your acknowledgement that it is only 5% - not a "massive" percentage - of the budget for the club in the premier league with the smallest revenues shows that it isn't a "massive" sum.

Sales of 180 of City's 'Dream Draw' tickets would cover the €30k you keep harping on about. And we've got individual sellers who've sold more than that many draw tickets single-handedly.

The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:

---

Then whats the delay in Derry paying UCD the mney they owe them.

30K is massive in our league. Its the equivalent of 2/3 good gates FFS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

€30k is not a "massive" sum of money in Irish football. Your acknowledgement that it is only 5% - not a "massive" percentage - of the budget for the club in the premier league with the smallest revenues shows that it isn't a "massive" sum.


The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:

---

Not really,UCD and that Irish league team(forget who it is)have both been on about Derry not paying them for players.

If its not a massive sum,why not pay it??:confused:

Here's a link to RTE's take on the subject:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2008/1107/bohemians.html

As you can see it's not all cut&dried at all yet.

My reading of it - Bohs entered into talks with Albion about selling the land
Bohs recieved monies to the value of 1.05m euro from Albion over time
No contract was ever finallised, but the judge is taking these payments to show that Albion now have a definite ownership issue in this tract of land.

(presumably Bohs only ever wanted to give back the 1.05mil but Albion will now be looking for a far greater ransom sum)

The Daninger deal may not be affected IF Bohs can buy out Albion - depending on the terms of the Daninger contracts, but we can all be sure that Mr Carroll would LOVE to re-negotiate the deal at least.


Proviso: I'm presuming there is SOME accuracy in the RTE piece - but this bit makes me wonder: "the proposed sell-off of the stadium and its re-location to a site in Castleknock."

Given Albion returned Bohs' cheque to buy the land, and then refused to give up their hold on the land, even letting Bohs sue them, I don't think they'll be being bought out any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

The deal you got for McCourt (400k all in?) was needed to keep the banks at bay, and there's money owed to other clubs (Dungannon mentioned for one), so the money owed to UCD isn't the full extent of your problems. I'd suggest you go off and ask questions about Derry's financial situation before commenting again. And there's not many deals between eL clubs that have exceeded E30k either.

---

I think the 55k we got for Shane Barrett is the highest between two EL clubs. It certainly was at the time and somebody in our club said they were told recently enough by somebody in the League offices that it still was. By highest i mean highest up front without add ons. So 30k is a big amount of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuanaD

My reading of it - Bohs entered into talks with Albion about selling the land
Bohs recieved monies to the value of 1.05m euro from Albion over time
No contract was ever finallised, but the judge is taking these payments to show that Albion now have a definite ownership issue in this tract of land.

---

I'm not a legal expert by any stretch but my understanding is that if money (or any other consideration) is paid then a contract is present, even if it's not written down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

---

Sorry - we only pay big, important clubs. Hence why it's Dungannon and UCD we owe money to.

It's part of our plan to drive you out of Irish football. Though you seem to have done a good job of that on-the-pitch yourselves this year....

:ball:

Why did Albion want this land, does anyone know?

Shams only paid big, important creditors. That's why it was their laundrette that screwed them over ultimately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Why did Albion want this land, does anyone know?

---

I think they also own the shopping centre behind it and want to redevelop the whole lot. I remember plans being made up a few years ago, they might have even gotten planning but I'm not sure about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Why did Albion want this land, does anyone know?

---

They were going to develop the Shopping centre end. part of the dela was to build Bohs some "executive boxes".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sligored

Some of your fellow bohs supporters have been on here gloating (not yourself it must be said)about how much better ye are compared to all the other teams in the league.

---

The league table doesn't lie. We've been the best team this season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sligored

Ye used this prospective money to raid many clubs players with contracts that the clubs could not match. For example in the case of sligo rovers ye were happy to seduct burns singh mansaram turner connor murphy with the lucrative contracts on offer.

---

In fairness, I doubt it took a huge amount of money to outbid Sligo for these. Turner aside, they are/were all on relatively modest contracts for a top team's wage bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sligored

And then you find it strange when other clubs supporters dont share in your grief.

:confused:

---

When were other clubs asked to share in our grief?

"The judge said he had come to the view that Albion are entitled to an interest in the land involved because there was 'clear evidence of repeated promises etc"

Did the judge define the extent of the interest or is that left for another day in court?

The judge delivered a 130 page judgement on it. I doubt a spourts journo, particularly one who supports Bohs, would have the legal nous to understand and intrepret all of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

"The judge said he had come to the view that Albion are entitled to an interest in the land involved because there was 'clear evidence of repeated promises etc"

Did the judge define the extent of the interest or is that left for another day in court?

---

The land sectioning was fairly complicated. The crux of it is that Albion are the beneficial owners of the land that was under dispute.

The reason for the use of the term "trust" is because Bohs are effectively the legal owners but they no longer have any beneficial interest in it.

I'll try post a copy of the judgment up on Monday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliesboots

The land sectioning was fairly complicated. The crux of it is that Albion are the beneficial owners of the land that was under dispute.

The reason for the use of the term "trust" is because Bohs are effectively the legal owners but they no longer have any beneficial interest in it.

---

I'm sure I'll regret asking this but what does that mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohDiddley

What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly.

If anyone thinks this is good for the league, then you are as misguided as the people who put Bohemian FC in this position.

---

Not sure I can entirely blame them TBH.

Neither you or I ever came on here crowing about our money and future dominance, but a fair few did; the minority of Bohs members who kept their eyes open through the last half- decade are not particularly represented over here. There were people -you included- asking questions which, had they been answered might have meant this day wouldn't have come. As we both know, a members club and 'democracy' were no protection against the same hubris that infected Shels/ Drogs/ Cork- a few hundred people can be as deluded as half a dozen.

I'm gutted because my club is - potentially - in tatters; I really don't expect sympathy for our entirely self -inflicted wounds; at least fans of the above clubs had the excuse that they didn't know what was going on ......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

I'm sure I'll regret asking this but what does that mean?

---

There can be two types of owners of land. Legal owners and beneficial owners (or equitable owners).

Take for example a couple who bought a house 30 years ago. Only Mr A's name is on the title deeds but both Mr and Mrs A payed off the mortgage equally over the thirty years.

So while Mr A is the legal owner, Mrs A has a 50% beneficial interest in the house.

Mr A is therefore is the legal owner of the entire house but only has a beneficial interest in 50% of the house and as legal owner holds the other 50% in trust for Mrs A.

So while Bohs are the legal owners of the disputed land (their name is on the title deeds), today's decision granted Albion the beneficial ownership over the parts of the land which the two sides had entered negotiations regarding. Bohs now, as legal owners, hold that land in trust for the beneficial owners, Albion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonofstan

Not sure I can entirely blame them TBH.

Neither you or I ever came on here crowing about our money and future dominance, but a fair few did; the minority of Bohs members who kept their eyes open through the last half- decade are not particularly represented over here. There were people -you included- asking questions which, had they been answered might have meant this day wouldn't have come. As we both know, a members club and 'democracy' were no protection against the same hubris that infected Shels/ Drogs/ Cork- a few hundred people can be as deluded as half a dozen.

I'm gutted because my club is - potentially - in tatters; I really don't expect sympathy for our entirely self -inflicted wounds; at least fans of the above clubs had the excuse that they didn't know what was going on ......

---

Don't want to stick the knife into anybody here and I don't know the ins and outs of Bohs internal disputes but.....Felim O'Reilly seemed to come out of the judgment pretty badly, so much so that it seems that his scampering to get money off Conroy may have ultimately cost Bohs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliesboots

There can be two types of owners of land. Legal owners and beneficial owners (or equitable owners).

Take for example a couple who bought a house 30 years ago. Only Mr A's name is on the title deeds but both Mr and Mrs A payed off the mortgage equally over the thirty years.

So while Mr A is the legal owner, Mrs A has a 50% beneficial interest in the house.

Mr A is therefore is the legal owner of the entire house but only has a beneficial interest in 50% of the house and as legal owner holds the other 50% in trust for Mrs A.

So while Bohs are the legal owners of the disputed land (their name is on the title deeds), today's decision granted Albion the beneficial ownership over the parts of the land which the two sides had entered negotiations regarding. Bohs now, as legal owners, hold that land in trust for the beneficial owners, Albion.

---

Is this the Finn Harps fan and his missus we're talking about there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Réiteoir

Is this the Finn Harps fan and his missus we're talking about there?

---

touché

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliesboots

So while Mr A is the legal owner, Mrs A has a 50% beneficial interest in the house.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Réiteoir

Is this the Finn Harps fan and his missus we're talking about there?

---

No, its Cuffe and Conway's secret identities on a witness protection programme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

You'd swear you were spending millions less than them :rolleyes:

---

I'd be very confident we are spending less than them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Let's say that selling Pat McCourt possibly saved the club. Massive enough for you?

And I disagree that E30k is a "relatively minor sum" in Irish football. It's 5% or so of our budget we're missing, for a start.

---

You know this for sure? How about some hard concrete facts to back up this statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohDiddley

What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly.

If anyone thinks this is good for the league, then you are as misguided as the people who put Bohemian FC in this position.

---

Agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

€30k is not a "massive" sum of money in Irish football. Your acknowledgement that it is only 5% - not a "massive" percentage - of the budget for the club in the premier league with the smallest revenues shows that it isn't a "massive" sum.

Sales of 180 of City's 'Dream Draw' tickets would cover the €30k you keep harping on about. And we've got individual sellers who've sold more than that many draw tickets single-handedly.

The fact that you think €30k it is such a "massive" sum in Irish football says more about UCD than it does about the game here. :eek:

---

Indeed, UCD dont get many fans through the gates, so they can hardly have as big a budget than ours. When you consider our club has dream draws, development committees, decent crowds in the gates then we can afford to have higher budgets than the likes of UCD. Also how do you know if its a straightforward deal, as in how the money is paid. Are you so sure that there isnt an agreement on paying installments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

The deal you got for McCourt (400k all in?) was needed to keep the banks at bay, and there's money owed to other clubs (Dungannon mentioned for one), so the money owed to UCD isn't the full extent of your problems. I'd suggest you go off and ask questions about Derry's financial situation before commenting again. And there's not many deals between eL clubs that have exceeded E30k either.

---

Well as you have alot to say on it and "seem to know alot on our financial siruation" then maybe you can shed light on what our predicament actually is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohDiddley

What a truly revolting spectacle.

An eL club loses a critical case against a property developer and the verdict is greeted with unbridled joy and the usual half-baked, ill-informed gloating from the boards' rabble of self-appointed football finance gurus. Ugly

If anyone thinks this is good for the league, then you are as misguided as the people who put Bohemian FC in this position.

---

But alot happier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliesboots

There can be two types of owners of land. Legal owners and beneficial owners (or equitable owners).

Take for example a couple who bought a house 30 years ago. Only Mr A's name is on the title deeds but both Mr and Mrs A payed off the mortgage equally over the thirty years.

So while Mr A is the legal owner, Mrs A has a 50% beneficial interest in the house.

Mr A is therefore is the legal owner of the entire house but only has a beneficial interest in 50% of the house and as legal owner holds the other 50% in trust for Mrs A.

---

So in this example if the house were to be sold, Mr and Mrs A would each receive 50% of the money? Is there any difference between being a beneficial owner and a legal owner then?

This is just a guess but but I am guessing that the beneficial owner cannot sell without permission from the legal owner. But possibley the legal owner can sell and give 50% (in this case) to the beneficial owner. I could be wrong there thats just a guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

This is just a guess but but I am guessing that the beneficial owner cannot sell without permission from the legal owner. But possibley the legal owner can sell and give 50% (in this case) to the beneficial owner. I could be wrong there thats just a guess.

---

Don't think so; certainly in the 'Mr. and Mrs. A' scenario, the beneficial owner has to consent to the sale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonofstan

Don't think so; certainly in the 'Mr. and Mrs. A' scenario, the beneficial owner has to consent to the sale.

---

That would be only cos of the Family Home Protection Act though!!

Albion will be entitled to use the land for whatever they want and the land will probably be conveyed properly to them, (stamp duty and that lark) in due course where they'll be the legal and beneficial owner.....providing Bohs don't appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Réiteoir

iirc - it's somewhere in North Wicklow

---

That's called Bray Wanderers. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

That'd be the least of their worries if they have to pay back the €1m for all the other years.

---

I thought those payments were for consideration only and NOT subject to planning permission ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Fair enough; if it's such a trivial sum, I'm sure you can pay it over?

The deal you got for McCourt (400k all in?) was needed to keep the banks at bay, and there's money owed to other clubs (Dungannon mentioned for one), so the money owed to UCD isn't the full extent of your problems. I'd suggest you go off and ask questions about Derry's financial situation before commenting again. And there's not many deals between eL clubs that have exceeded E30k either.

---

As a Derry city share holder who has seen the financial figures, why are you talking BS?

You know that the €30k is including Sammons sell on clause and do you know when we will be receiving that from Kilmarnock?

So the 400k saved us???????????????? So far we have only recieved £100k, this is know as normal between football clubs.

So someone who lives in Dublin and not a Derry fan knows the in's and out's of another clubs finances!!!!

As for our budget this season which is a lot smaller than last year when Fenlon came to destroy us is still under 24k a week which is less than half Corks,Pats, Drogs and Bohs budgets up until recently.

Pineapple Stu can you attribute your post as the rules require?

Right, so how much do I get from this? Now that it's mentioned I do have a vague recollection of buying part of Dalymount one night while a bit ****ed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Pineapple Stu can you attribute your post as the rules require?

---

He doesn't follow any rules. He's a Maverick.
(I think this is why he refers to football clubs with the agricultural 'tits up'.)


I understand that posters are trying to explain some legal issues and fair play. But comparing these proceedings with the domestic home confuses things as the Family Home Protection Act 1976 protects both spouses (gender specific warning: usually the wife.) from having the home sold without their permission... and even then.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/...027/index.html
Consent of spouse
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/...l#zza27y1976s4


(I don't want to get into any detailed discussion on this only I just had a Judge Judy moment.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by City till I Die

Well as you have alot to say on it and "seem to know alot on our financial siruation" then maybe you can shed light on what our predicament actually is?

---

Just heard from the man himself (guess who) that the cheque from Derry arrived during the week. *******s wouldn't pay until John Delaney intervened. Tight arsed scumbags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

Just heard from the man himself (guess who) that the cheque from Derry arrived during the week. *******s wouldn't pay until John Delaney intervened. Tight arsed scumbags.

---

What are you going to whinge about now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

Just heard from the man himself (guess who) that the cheque from Derry arrived during the week. *******s wouldn't pay until John Delaney intervened. Tight arsed scumbags.

---

But hang on - Pineapple Stu says you're still owed the money, and that we're in financial sh!t and can't afford to pay it !

Surely someone with his in-depth knowledge of other club's finances would know his own club's finances even more intimately, and have heard the minute the cheque landed at UCD...!?!

Don't tell me Pineapple Stu's got this all wrong....? :eek:

:o

Nope, Delaney hassled and hassled Derry, and the cheque has finally arrived. No contradictions; I wasn't aware of the latest development until this evening. I've never claimed to be up to the minute; that's your claim. The cheque is still six months late though.

You can believe me or not about Derry, I don't care. But I've requested previous Derry fans who've challenged me on it to go off and look into the club's accounts before posting further, and none have. My source is the UCD club officials, who were told this during the previously mentioned heated meeting with Derry officials after the UCD-Derry game in August. MariborKev has posted on the Rovers forum that Derry will be having serious cut backs next year, despite what deluded Derry fans think; I think that's fairly good back up. I think you'll find my previous record in such matters to be quite good too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Nope, Delaney hassled and hassled Derry, and the cheque has finally arrived. No contradictions; I wasn't aware of the latest development until this evening. I've never claimed to be up to the minute; that's your claim. The cheque is still six months late though.

You can believe me or not about Derry, I don't care. But I've requested previous Derry fans who've challenged me on it to go off and look into the club's accounts before posting further, and none have. My source is the UCD club officials, who were told this during the previously mentioned heated meeting with Derry officials after the UCD-Derry game in August. MariborKev has posted on the Rovers forum that Derry will be having serious cut backs next year, despite what deluded Derry fans think; I think that's fairly good back up. I think you'll find my previous record in such matters to be quite good too.

---

It's common knowledge that Derry will be looking to make cut-backs next year - and I think it's fair to say most fans have accepted it.

But even if Derry are on a dangerous slope (like everyone else except the students and maybe a couple of others) we're still some way away from the trouble Bohs are in.