Bohs Court Case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

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.

---

Given the chairman made a lengthy statement to that effect... I would agree SvD. But Stu being Stu would love to tag everyone of us with his "deluded" label :rolleyes:

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's are fully paid now including the sell-on money we got.


How could it be six months late? We only sold Sammon on monday the 28th of July!

I thought you were good at maths :rolleyes:

P.S. Most Derry fans know our budget will be smaller next season as we were told about months ago. Living within our means is what we intend to keep doing and if it means we don't win the league thats fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candystripe

You's are fully paid now including the sell-on money we got.


How could it be six months late? We only sold Sammon on monday the 28th of July!

I thought you were good at maths :rolleyes:

P.S. Most Derry fans know our budget will be smaller next season as we were told about months ago. Living within our means is what we intend to keep doing and if it means we don't win the league thats fair enough.

---

Surely that should read League Cup in the last sentence there? ;)

he hee he

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Réiteoir

Surely that should read League Cup in the last sentence there? ;)

---

I'll take the League Cup any day over the futsal or whatever other pub League you'll be playing in next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candystripe

How could it be six months late? We only sold Sammon on monday the 28th of July!

---

We sold him to you last December; the second instalment of that was only paid this week, way after the agreed schedule.

I'm fully aware Derry are nowhere near being the next Bohs, but things are far from rosy up there and, as I said, but for the sale of McCourt, it would have been a lot worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dancinpants

But Stu being Stu would love to tag everyone of us with his "deluded" label

---

Not my label.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliesboots

Care to explain the anomalies and inconsistencies littering the judgment?

It was one of the most thorough judgments I have ever heard and it was obvious that a great deal of consideration was given and a great deal of effort put into writing it up.

John Edwards, while only a short while on the bench, was one of the very top and most highly respected lawyers in the country for years.

---

If you read the entire judgement you will find that the equitable principles that he cited to hold in favour of Albion`s counter-claim are completely without precedent. None of the commercial lawyers I spoke to could name a similar case It looks to me that he also erred in reaching findings that were not specifically argued before him. Edwards acted as if he was still a lawyer advising clients .The reality now is that Bohs and Albion are still in the same position in that ageement is required from both sides to realise the others ambitions. The clock is ticking on Albions planning permission and Albion`s equitable interest in the Tramway end puts a hold on the Carroll deal. If Albion look for Specific Performance of their interest they will have to join the very long queue of such cases pending in the commercial courts. I would be surprised if there wasn`t a three way settlement with Albion ,Carroll and Bohs before this appears in the courts again. Carroll can of course pursue Bohs on simple contract debt grounds if he wants out of the picture or he can use the strong position he is now in to aquire the entire site plus shopping centre. Either way Bohs retain a substantial propety asset and maximum exposure amounts to a mortgage equating to 10% of the value of the assett. Any commercial company would be delighted with that level of gearing.
So.... sorry to disappoint the Rovers posters on this thread but we are, and will continue to be, considerably richer than you:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalymountrower

If you read the entire judgement

---

How? it doesn't appear to be up on the Courts' Service site yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalymountrower

Either way Bohs retain a substantial propety asset and maximum exposure amounts to a mortgage equating to 10% of the value of the assett. Any commercial company would be delighted with that level of gearing.

---

Talk about spin.....

Where do you get your 10% figure from?

Where do you propose to get a mortgage from?

How would you service the repayments on that mortgage given you don't generate cash, you burn it?

Unless Liam Carroll's financial wellbeing is a lot better than media reports say he'll look to void the contract and get repayment of monies advanced. I can't see his bankers letting him turn down the option of effectively selling back land at 200-300% of its current market value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Talk about spin.....

I have a view you have a view, call it spin if you like

Where do you get your 10% figure from?

At the outside 4mill exposure, already have overdraft facility up to that amount. Consevative value of land without Albion portion 40 mill

Where do you propose to get a mortgage from?

Whoever gives the the most competitive rate

How would you service the repayments on that mortgage given you don't generate cash, you burn it?

We`ll have to stop the ritual cash burning alright, a reduced playing panel and a more realistic wage structure would be a start

Unless Liam Carroll's financial wellbeing is a lot better than media reports say he'll look to void the contract and get repayment of monies advanced. I can't see his bankers letting him turn down the option of effectively selling back land at 200-300% of its current market value.

---

I don`t understand your point, if Carrolll wants to pull out he can, if he wants to stay in the game he`ll have to cut a deal with Bohs. If Albion want to proceed on the basis of their existing planning then they also have to cut a deal with Bohs. The only certainty is that when the dust settles on this mess Bohs will either have a valuable piece of land, no takers and a difficult , if manageable debt, or a large wad of cash in the tens of millions. Obviously it could be better but not a disasterous position by any means

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalymountrower

If you read the entire judgement you will find that the equitable principles that he cited to hold in favour of Albion`s counter-claim are completely without precedent. None of the commercial lawyers I spoke to could name a similar case It looks to me that he also erred in reaching findings that were not specifically argued before him. Edwards acted as if he was still a lawyer advising clients .The reality now is that Bohs and Albion are still in the same position in that ageement is required from both sides to realise the others ambitions. The clock is ticking on Albions planning permission and Albion`s equitable interest in the Tramway end puts a hold on the Carroll deal. If Albion look for Specific Performance of their interest they will have to join the very long queue of such cases pending in the commercial courts. I would be surprised if there wasn`t a three way settlement with Albion ,Carroll and Bohs before this appears in the courts again. Carroll can of course pursue Bohs on simple contract debt grounds if he wants out of the picture or he can use the strong position he is now in to aquire the entire site plus shopping centre. Either way Bohs retain a substantial propety asset and maximum exposure amounts to a mortgage equating to 10% of the value of the assett. Any commercial company would be delighted with that level of gearing.
So.... sorry to disappoint the Rovers posters on this thread but we are, and will continue to be, considerably richer than you:cool:

---

:D:D: Thats the spirit.

Funny I seem to recall myself and a lot of other Bohs supporters supporting Rovers in their own court case against the GAA.

Given that Albion have already paid money to Bohs as per their contract on what basis were Bohs looking to have that contract cancelled? From what I have read Albion have not breached their contract.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good

Funny I seem to recall myself and a lot of other Bohs supporters supporting Rovers in their own court case against the GAA.

---

There's a difference between an act of bigotry and an act of business stupidity on an impressive scale.

Youz tried to sell something twice, ffs.

Who knew a stand with 4 rows of seats (or whatever that comedy stand they wanted to develop with Albion had) would prove to be such a problem.

I remember thinking at the time it was a ridiculous proposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I remember thinking at the time it was a ridiculous proposal.

---

I was saying the same. From the drawing of the stand it seemed very poor and it was a bit strange that Bohs did agree to it at the time. I thought they were getting short changed at the time to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A face

I was saying the same. From the drawing of the stand it seemed very poor and it was a bit strange that Bohs did agree to it at the time. I thought they were getting short changed at the time to be honest.

---

does anyone have the plans of that stand handy by any chance????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalymountrower

I don`t understand your point, if Carrolll wants to pull out he can, if he wants to stay in the game he`ll have to cut a deal with Bohs. If Albion want to proceed on the basis of their existing planning then they also have to cut a deal with Bohs. The only certainty is that when the dust settles on this mess Bohs will either have a valuable piece of land, no takers and a difficult , if manageable debt, or a large wad of cash in the tens of millions. Obviously it could be better but not a disasterous position by any means

---

the land is only worth what some one is willing to pay for it, thats what drove the property boom and the unsustainable prices. developers were willing to take huge loans and buy land at artificially inflated prices in the hope of making a quick turnaround on the development. if no one is willing to buy your ground, its worth **** all to youse. and in the current climate in the construction industry, no one will looking to buy it off youse any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalymountrower

If you read the entire judgement....

---

I was in Court for the entire judgment and I stand by my original post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalymountrower

I don`t understand your point, if The only certainty is that when the dust settles on this mess Bohs will either have a valuable piece of land, no takers and a difficult , if manageable debt, s

---

The land is only valuable if some wants to, or is able to, buy it.

As a football pitch it's worthless.

And the debt - how exactly will that be managed given the pitiable gate receipts and the existing borrowings costing €100,00 p.a. in interest alone?