Bohs in financial trouble - FAI Licencing called into question again?

On the Fenlon thing, I think he's an overrated manager who's often spent badly at the three clubs he's been at, and who's generally underachieved compared to the money he's had to spend. But as you say, I don't think he can be blamed for the happenings at Tolka/Dalyer/the Brandywell.

Though as a slight aside, the term "manager" - which I think is almost unique to British (and Irish) football - refers I think to the role that that person had in clubs, which was literally as club manager - i.e. managing budgets, staff matters, etc. On the continent, he's called a head coach because he just looks afer the coaching side of things. So you could argue that Fenlon, if he wants to be called a "manager" specifically, should accept some responsibility for the losses incurred.

( :), just in case people start taking that too seriously)

just on the catchphrases/chants of bohs fans over the years, im surprised that these caused so much anger/resentment with you otherwise intelligent people.

The Big Club/Minnows is about as tongue in cheek as it can get - coined after our victory in Aberdeen all those years ago, for people to take it as us being serious says more about those that took it in anyway seriously than any arrogance on behalf of Bohs fans. It was a joke that, once it became obvious that it annoyed everyone so much, was hard to let go. It is no more serious than the Model Club moniker that Rovers fans have adopted.

We are Invincible - football fans in inaccurate football chant shocker! It was a fun season and it was a fun chant....

ya see if you sang "were **** and we know we are" you would not have annoyed the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passerrby

ya see if you sang "were **** and we know we are" you would not have annoyed the rest of us.

---

There was a song at Dalymount last season - pointing to the shopping centre end "that bit over there, we sold it two times" :o

we were very annoyed with ourselves afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It's a thread about Bohs. Like, duh.


I think there was a lot of sympathy when small clubs folded because they didn't have the people to keep them going - Kilkenny and Kildare being obvious examples. I think when a club recklessly racks up millions of debt, helping cause wage inflation throughout the league and leading to the current situation where they're causing more bad news stories for the league, it's hard to be too sympathetic. The fact that it was their fans who voted most of the club's actions through - and, it's worth noting, those who queried what was happening were rounded on and driven out, as per the Indo article - means it's actually their fault as well, and they can't use the "hated uncontrollable owner" line.

But yeah, ultimately, I think if they (and Cork and Shels and Derry and others) had had a bit more humility and awareness of what was going on during the "good times", there'd be less of a backlash now. That's just human nature, I think.

---

That's a fair point PS, though I still just query anyone from another club, in our league especially, who would bother or even attempt to incur the wrath of fate! This afternoon I remembered a chat I had with a hard core Drogs fan, and I must point out I'd gone the odd time to United Park and always wanted them to do well - except in the Wee Derby. This goon proceeded to tell me that had Dundalk any ambition at all, we'd "burst a gut" to try make something happen. I saw the same person rattling a tin in Drogheda raising funds for the club (I gave a fiver) and asked him if it was worth it. He smiled and said "Jaysus, sure we'd do it again." Show me a fan in this league who'd love it if a heap of cash came their clubs way to take a title tilt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maseanjo

What a fun thread this is.
I don't think anyone is claiming that everything that is wrong at Bohs is down to Fenlon alone, but I do think his high spending regardless of the real value of players has in general contributed to the culture, which has sunk many clubs, that the pursuit of success justifies spending more than your income to the point where the very existence of the club is threatened. Is he the cause of all our woes? - no. Does he encapsulate in one small package a great deal of what is wrong with our league at the moment - I believe so. Do I have any idea what key I pressed resulting in part of this post being in italics? - I do not.

---

A manager's job is to generate on-pitch success. That's how they get measured/rewarded. As part of that, they'll obviously want the best players at their disposal.

It's not a football manager's job to be aquainted with the financial minutae of his club, unles of course the Board make a point of ensuring that he is. It's the Board that provide a budget for signings, salaries etc, so the buck starts and stop with them on spenidng decisions.

So Manager's aren't to blame if a club overspends. The worst they can be accused of is being too persuasive for their Board. Board's are to blame.

Fenlon is only to blame to the extent of poor signings, strange tactics and our inept performances this season.

To be honest, its a blessing in disguise that we cant paper over the cracks again and compound the situation.

Fenlon is so good at ruining the clubs he's involved in managed to persuade the Derry board to hand out those nice contracts years after he had left the club.......

Seriously though, is Fenlon at fault for what happened at Cork, Drogs & Derry? These clubs were just as reckless as Shels & Bohs financially but Fenlon was a good enough manager to make the most of his resources. He has made mistakes this year & they have never got going, but he did lose his best two players in Murphy & Deegan who were near impossible to replace, this coming a year after losing the best current CM in the country in Stephen O'Donnell because they could not afford to keep him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Dodge, its a football chant, get over it, bit like the "shed end invincibles" banner that used to be seen at Inchicore. not to be taken too seriously.

---

And what do you think my poking fun at it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

And what do you think my poking fun at it is?

---

Minnowism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

A manager's job is to generate on-pitch success. That's how they get measured/rewarded. As part of that, they'll obviously want the best players at their disposal.

It's not a football manager's job to be aquainted with the financial minutae of his club, unles of course the Board make a point of ensuring that he is. It's the Board that provide a budget for signings, salaries etc, so the buck starts and stop with them on spenidng decisions.

So Manager's aren't to blame if a club overspends. The worst they can be accused of is being too persuasive for their Board. Board's are to blame.

---

I'm always amazed at this line of thinking. Personally, I feel a manager should act as a link between board and the first team, and not be so short sighted as to just demand every single penny possible for players. It's ridiculous to think that a manager just says "I want that one" and leaves the rest to the board. Fenlon (or whoever at whatever club) should work with the board and see if that's a good deal for the club in terms of the length and cost of the deal. Fenlon would undoubtedly have had better on field success over a longer period of time if he sat down and instead of picking the first 5/6 players available on a free transfer, spent longer working on the minutae of the details, and the club's ability to pay them over a longer period of time.

At Shamrock Rovers, MON at both AGMs has made it clear that he can't get his head around the finances involved in the league. He's said how he's turned down player's ridiculous offers, including losing out on players to Bohemians and others in this off-season. His outlook has been towards getting young players on reasonable contracts, and at Rovers we now have a good, affordable, young squad.

At this season's AGM MON gave examples of the type of demands he's rejected from players. His reasoning was that if players would rather sign for Bohs (who everyone knew were in financialy precarious long-term position) for the sake of a few extra euro cash in hand, then they wouldn't be the type of player likely to have the hunger and drive needed to succeed over the long-term. Looking at how Rovers battled and worked in Israel, Italy and to overcome a bad league start, compared with how Bohs seemed to have thrown in the towel, I think MON might be the start of a new breed of more prudent managers. Hopefully so anyway.

All hail St. MON, All HAIL ST. MON :rolleyes:

So it's not a better approach to take? Y'know, someone actually being financial responsible and looking at something long-term for once with this league. It's not just MON, I obviously just know him better. Mahon seems to be another willing to deal with reality, and of course Russell at UCD I'd presume.

Is young hungry Dan Murray playing for free??

What about young, hungry Keith Gillespie that was on trial the other day??

To suggest that MON is somehow the "start of a new breed of more prudent manager" because he spends less than Nutsy Fenlon is sanctimonious nonsense. The vast majority of managers in thie league operate to very tight budgets and in a lot of cases have been doing so for years.

Lets not over egg the pudding. ;)

If Fenlon's given a budget and says "No - that'll bankrupt the club, I insist you cut the budget by E10k a month", the board will say "Right, you're sacked; we'll get in some other numpty"

I doubt Pat Fenlon was aware of the financial situation at the club, at least, not how bad it was. He's not a professional accountant, he probably hasn't been through the accounts with a fine-tooth comb, I reckon the board told him how much money was available for transfers and wages, and he made the not completely unreasonable assumption that spending that money wouldn't drive the club into the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

I doubt Pat Fenlon was aware of the financial situation at the club, at least, not how bad it was. He's not a professional accountant, he probably hasn't been through the accounts with a fine-tooth comb,

---

I wouldn't say he was that unaware though. It doesn't really take an accounting genius to realise that losses of E1m+ are bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maseanjo

It is however, Steve, surely no co-incidence that Fenlon's success would appear to leave a trail of devastation in it's wake. Perhaps you are right, perhaps any club that is fool enough to employ him gets what it deserves for generating a culture of infalted fees and wages, but I don't think the manager can be totally exonerated if his purchases and recommendations to often inexperienced boards results in financial difficulty for the club, as evidenced by the way in which he chewed up and spat out the muppets who were running our club.

---

If Board's are stupid enough to agree to signings they can't afford, how is Fenlon the one to blame for asking for the players ? It's not hus joib to check his ambitions and 'guess' what the cliub can afford, is it ?

It's probably a vicious circle with Fenlon. He will only be attracted to club's with a serious chance of silverware, and the oinly clubs likely to meet his own salary demands likewise expect success in return as well. He will therefore walk into an environment of expectation anywhere he goes. If that expectation leads to Boards being foolish enough to give him money they can't afford, then that's theire issue - not his.

It would be akin to blaming young kids for being spoiled, rather than the parents who just keep lavishing them unchecked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

I'm always amazed at this line of thinking. Personally, I feel a manager should act as a link between board and the first team, and not be so short sighted as to just demand every single penny possible for players. It's ridiculous to think that a manager just says "I want that one" and leaves the rest to the board. Fenlon (or whoever at whatever club) should work with the board and see if that's a good deal for the club in terms of the length and cost of the deal. Fenlon would undoubtedly have had better on field success over a longer period of time if he sat down and instead of picking the first 5/6 players available on a free transfer, spent longer working on the minutae of the details, and the club's ability to pay them over a longer period of time.

At Shamrock Rovers, MON at both AGMs has made it clear that he can't get his head around the finances involved in the league. He's said how he's turned down player's ridiculous offers, including losing out on players to Bohemians and others in this off-season. His outlook has been towards getting young players on reasonable contracts, and at Rovers we now have a good, affordable, young squad.

At this season's AGM MON gave examples of the type of demands he's rejected from players. His reasoning was that if players would rather sign for Bohs (who everyone knew were in financialy precarious long-term position) for the sake of a few extra euro cash in hand, then they wouldn't be the type of player likely to have the hunger and drive needed to succeed over the long-term. Looking at how Rovers battled and worked in Israel, Italy and to overcome a bad league start, compared with how Bohs seemed to have thrown in the towel, I think MON might be the start of a new breed of more prudent managers. Hopefully so anyway.

---

So effectively you're asking for managers to be treated almost like a Board member ?! Guaranteed to terrify the ballax off of every other Board member the day that that ever happened ! :D

What you've written above just reinforces the point that it is Board's that are in control. Managers are there for their football knowledge, not their financial acumen. As you've stated above, the manager of the team at the top of the league hasn't a scooby about finances. What seems to have happened at Rovers is that the Board has left him in no doubt as to what finances are and aren't available to him. That doesn't seem to have happened with regards Fenlon. Either that or they told him he could spend way more than they could afford, or he chanced his arm by asking for more than he was told was available and they yielded. Regardless of which of those scenarios is factually correct, they all have one thing in common. It's that the Board is the only body that makes the money decisions, has the full financial picture at its disposal, and therefore is ultimately responsible.

Fenlon can't be blamed for the budget handed to him at bohs, the only question that can be put to him, is did bohs get value for money for the budget that was handed to him?