Sorry. Semantics malfunction.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
'Highlight a number of areas of concern'. Mud will stick.
They haven't even got the grace to come out and make the allegation.
Sorry. Semantics malfunction.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
'Highlight a number of areas of concern'. Mud will stick.
They haven't even got the grace to come out and make the allegation.
Then why does the story, which emanates from Tallaght, say they've made an official complaint?Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Emanates from Tallaght?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohDiddley
Comical Gerry is the only one quoted in the story.
So the tallaght renting boys want accounts checked back to 2005 ? grand idea but why stop there, a year or two further and perhaps we can identify the club thatQuote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
The hypocracy of that small minded bitter club knows no bounds. Funny how they dont question clubs (like themselves) that have walked away from money owed to players yet complain about clubs that pay.
- (1) misappropriated government grants
- (2) walked away from its debts without sanction (YET)
- (3) knowingly submitted fraudulent accounts to the licencing committee but retained a licence (bet derry would settle for 8 pt deduction)
Great to see that looking for handouts still remains the only policy open South Dublin County councils tenants.
Marino Bohs do you not see the irony in your bitter post calling Shamrock Rovers bitter?
I think everything has been said on this to be honest, its now in the hands of the FAI to deal with, If Bohs have done anything worng, theyll be reprimanded im sure, likewise if there in the clear then theyll be fine.
marinobohs - don't go dragging the thread off topic. What Rovers' previous board did is of no relevance now.
(And I still find it amusing that, five pages after BYCTWD mentioned it, Bohs fans are still countering criticism of the club by comparing it to what Maguire did at Rovers)
We are going on a newspaper article in the Mail.
I think its more than possible that Rovers (and possibly other clubs) made other allegations regarding Bohs finances to the FAI aside from the specific ones mentioned in the article and that the Mail decided against printing them.
Not so much bitter as true. when SRFC had their "troubles" they got away with murder due to the smypathy shown by other clubs. To now be throwing mud about other clubs is pretty rich (something rare in LOI circles :)). The timing of the complaint is especially galling and reeks of sour grapes at how Bohs beat them in the title race.Quote:
Originally Posted by theneutral
I deliberately avoided responding to the allegations as I agree it is a matter for the FAI as to compliance with the 65% rule. Lets hope they are as dilligent on this as they were in dealing with complaints against SRFC :rolleyes:
so it is OK to question bohs finances back to 2005 but not question what SRFC did historically ? if you cannot see the hypocracy of that aurgument you should consider a season ticket at Tallaght next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
if SRFC are not responsible for what happened before 2005 can they please stop claiming all the throphys won before that ? it really is one or the other.
As stated in previous post I am not addressing the issues simply commenting on the source of the complaint (hope that explains it for you).
So the responsibility for compliance with the rulebook lies with the person responsible for setting and enforcing the rules, not the people who the rules apply to?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Computer says noooooooooo.
BYCTWD Quote:
. This thread is about Bohs 1,900% increase in off the pitch spending with no clear increase in activity around the time of the wage cap. You can try and divert till the cows come home, but the salient fact is that aside from LukeO, not one Bohs fan has made any effort to address these issues.
LukeO dealt with the points made, comprehensively and factually. Do you want Bohs fans to respond with a different set of facts that fits in with your initial premise that we have something to hide??? It would be bit too much to hope that we are as devious and Machiavellian as many Posters here seem to think...back handed compliment I suppose.
BYCNTWD I think its hilarious to witness the zealousness of the converts to Fiscal Rectitude from Tallaght. If there one thing that is sure to galvanise Bohs fans is a move against us prompted by the former bankrupts. Rovers challenging us for the title or winning by us defaulting on the SCP was enough to launch up to a dozen heavily supported fundraisers from last July which has comfortaby steered us to come within the 65%. This latest nonsense will do the same..... so keep stirring that pot Hoops:D
yep, got me, ENFORCEMENT of the 65% rule is responsibility of the FAI (but I'm sure you know that ;))Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Couple of points:
I will love it, just love it when Bohs have been cleared of all these unfortunate allegations (for I am confident that is what they are).
Any indignation or defensive procrastinations by Bohs supporters here are simply as a result of the incredible ferocity of the vast majority of posters baying for blood. Guilty we are apparently before we prove our innocence.
I must say that when I initially read the figures as outlined in the D.M. my eyebrows were raised. However on closer inspection (if any of you actually bothered to inspect closer than the article) there are any number of valid reasons for the apparent increases as outlined. And indeed explanations outlined by board members on the Bohs M.B. and kindly directed by LukeO within this thread. Although it would appear that they have been ignored by the Agendista who it would appear are already sharpening their knives for the bloodbath.
In fact as it's already been alluded to in this thread, if Bohs are successful in proving their innocence, it seems that the minds of a fair few posters in here have already made their minds up that the FAI have 'fudged' their responsibilities. Laughable in the extreme. Shameful in the other extreme.
It has also been questioned ad infinitum early in this thread as to why we had a transfer embargo placed upon us during the season - almost to the degree that because we were then the default position would remain and we would thus remain in contempt of the law. The simple answer here is that we had the embargo placed on the club because we were sailing above the agreed template for wages at that point. This was found by the FAI (not Shams or anybody else) because of the audit system that every other club had to submit the same information for. Thanks to this system, we, the members and supporters were in a positon to take measures to minimize our risk and take affirmative action with the target of bringing the club back under the threshold and therefore keep us within the rules. I wonder is this the splinter that sticks in the craw?
Question, has it not passed the small brains that post here that having found ourselves in the position to have this embargo placed upon us that a tremendous amount of work was carried out in fundraising activity so as to bring the club back within the boundaries of the law? Fundraising that every club would love supporters and members to take a part in?
Let me pin my colours to the mast here. If Bohs are found to be guilty of wrongdoing then we will take it on the chin and deal with it.
Leaving aside the double standard moderation, what is hard to take reading through the pre schadenfruede bile on this thread is the contemptible, accusatory, holier than thou stance the usual suspects are taking on this issue.
People in glass houses and all that.
So the world started in 2005 ???? When are you guys going to decide if you are (A) Shamrock Rovers 1927 and all the baggage/ throphies that go with that OR (B) a new club set up in 2005 (almost as successful as Sporting Fingal) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
My point is that Bohs accounts in previous years have been signed off by the FAI (like it or not). if you want to reopen them then you should be prepared to reopen the sins of your own club (whichever one it is).
Once again, I am not responding to individual points as most of them are so ridiculous as to not deserve a response. Happy to let the FAI do their job.
That's entirely a matter of opinion. The Shamrock non-allegations to which you give such credence refer to 2005 to 2008. The board of BFC as currently constituted is very different from the one that sat during that period.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Please square that in terms of the moderating warning you've issued, or are we on a level playing field here?
The ones Pineapple Stu is trying to defend (absurdly IMO) in his response - #145 - I'm wondering now if you're picking and choosing which posts you are reading?Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
The rules need an overhaul if you can go round giving infractions because somebody says something you dont like to your mate. That was more a comment on the attendence of UCD matches hardly having problems with the guards rather than dismissing his opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Im sure throughout this thread people have dismissed bohs fans opinions in this thread as them 'having their heads in the sand' is that not dismissing a fans opinion because of who they support? Did all these people get infractions???
Why is 2005 the starting point in all this?
Bohs did not expect rovers to be docked points over the racism incident they merely reported it surely it would have been disrespectful to ndo not to report it? You werent cleared of racism...insufficient evidence was the conclusion...for some reason.
Also TheNeutral you are the least neutral poster ever.
Make me laugh why doncha! I suppose we all should be happy so that the paedophile priests that 'owned up' were right to accept their slap on the wrist and sent off to childcare facilities in other areas of the country because they admitted they were wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Call it what you want Topia, i dont support any team, go to matches when i can, will openly admit that oweing to experiences over the years that Bohs would be my least favourite club of the lot but still makes me a neutral!
Thread seems to be getting dragged off topic. ALso its bareing more than a striking resemblence to the Racism thread a few months back, except everybody has swapped shoes.
Contagent?Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Removed or not, it didn't go down without a fight I think you'll agree.
Convenient of you all the same to take possibly the least important part of my post to dissect.
Now that you mention it...Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Re biased/unjust moderation.
Do any Bohs fans actually understand the concept of a change of ownership? Like, do you understand that Rovers fans opposed what their board did, and in fact raised queries with the FAI about them the same way Rovers have no raised issues over Bohs with the FAI?
Giving out to posters for dismissing Rovers' questions on the basis of what their fans fought against is not double standards; it's merely an attempt at saving Bohs fans' embarrassment by continually likening their current board to Maguire & Co.
Are Bohs fans so completely heads-in-the-sand that they can't see this simple connection?
Everyone except you. IIRC, you were content to look the other way when racism was the issue, and you're content to use that issue as an equivalent scenario to some half-baked allegations on accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by theneutral
For a 'neutral', whatever that's supposed to mean, you're also remarkably well-informed on and animated by things Bohemian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
You mean the 1st year Rovers spending was 'normal' or something?
How could it possibly be disrespectful to make a complaint on Ndos behalf? and how do you know he didnt ask the club to make a complaint? If you seriously think that Bohs made the complaint in an attempt to have Rovers docked points and that no racism actually occurred you have issues.
You are not comparing like with like here and you know it. Also how exactly did it turn out to be 'nothing'? Because you werent charged?
There seems to be an awful lot of Rovers fans on here getting excited about this while claiming that Bohs fans are getting their knickers in a twist.
Fair play to Rovers for putting these questions to the FAI. It was obvious that there would be those that, for very obvious reasons, seek to present their genuine concerns as sour grapes. The LOI owes Rovers a big thank you for having the courage to openly say what other club dare not openly say.
Excellent. Any drier and there'd be camels walking across it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
Q.E.D.Quote:
Originally Posted by topia
I too am completely convinved that bohs will be cleared of any wrong doing by the fai.. however that will not be enough for fair minded people throughout the game
But it is sour grapes. Why wait until after the season is over if its for the good of the league?Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
I repeat though, that none of this negates the seriousness of the allegations, npr the onus on the FAI to onvestigate
so you obviously dont know what the word "compare" means. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
please see TG4 video. Rovers fans made monkey noises to Joseph Ndo.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
heres some double standards in moderation for you - youre saying that its fair to present questions based on a newspaper article, yet you are allowing things that were not mentioned in the newspaper article to be presented as fact by the keyboard warriors to be subject to "answering" from Bohs fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Trying to save Bohs fans from embarassment? Please - this is the sort of thread that gets you off. Seriously, you should be ashamed to call yourself a moderator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Well Bohs didn't cover themselves in glory when they had to deal with one of their own players in that regard.
They fined & suspended him, what more do you want. Although going by the holier than thou attitude of the keyboard warriors on this site he should have been burned at the stake!Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
At least they acknowledged it happened, but thats another issue to the bulls**t posted by others on this thread.
Please withdraw this remark.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
There is no evidence that any more than one person made the monkey noise, so the use of the plural is incorrect. Also, although the individual is highly likely to have been a Rovers fan, there is again no evidence as to who he is and what football team he supports. An independant enquiry has exonerated SRFC.
To be fair, just listening to it, it is purely a matter of opinion as to whether there was one fan, or more than one. You cannot say that the use of the plural is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by EnglishSource
Anyhow, seeing as you apparently heard the monkey noises, could you post the same post in this thread please?
FFS What more proof do you need!!! There have been supporters (or is that alleged supporters?) of Shams, the real Rovers, Dundalkkk, Limerick, Waterford, UCD, Pats and probably some more that I can't remember without trawling through the last 10 pages that have explicitly stated,.. nay, PROVED that Bohs are fiddling the books by posting it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
In fact I think that we should probably head over to the FAI HQ first thing tomorrow and throw in the towel. Under so much intense pressure and under the towering mountains of PROOF on this mb, there really is no other option.
So is it possible, definite or probable?Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
"Rovers do not accuse Bohemians of anything untoward, nor do they offer any proof of wrongdoing"
There was actual proof of what we "alleged". Of course the actual proof provided was with actual audable racist abuse is deemed inconclusive evidence in the world of foot.ie but the ramblings of a bunch of sore losers who declare that
"Rovers do not accuse Bohemians of anything untoward, nor do they offer any proof of wrongdoing"
and the over-active imaginations of some UCD and Derry fans are conclusive proof and we should get our heads out of the sand. :rolleyes:
BP,
Would you accept that if you brought the accounts to any reasonable accountant, they might come up with the same questions Rovers asked/alleged to have asked?
Not saying anything is untoward, but they do certainly beg more than a few questions.
You think we don't have professionals auditing our accounts? LukeO already outlined any explanations that were necessary, the rest of this thread is just a few people (not saying yourself) trying to stick the knife in. What we're upset about is that this type of mud sticks whether its true or not and its this Rovers had in mind when going about things the way they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by MariborKev
Having accounts audited does not necessarily mean that all basis are covered by such. Accounts are generally audited to ensure all financial regulations are complied with. An auditor would not be tasked to raise questions about football regulations in respect of accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I've split off a good page worth of stuff here, it's off topic and/or embarassingly childish. Not one of the people bitching and whining about the moderation has taken the time to file a complaint in the Support forum, or to an admin. We're not mind readers. So either file a complaint, in detail and without the ridiculous emotion, or follow through on your adolescent threats to "boycott" the site and just feck off. You don't need to say goodbye, just click Log Out above and don't come back.
Finally, on the subject of LukeO, his behaviour was pathetic and disrespectful. I put my own time into this website, for zero profit because of the failed online ad market. I absolutely refuse to be treated with disrespect by complete idiots like LukeO.
Now can ye please either discuss the subject like adults and try to get on? It's just football folks, not nuclear war.
adam