Full page article today in the Daily Mail on Rovers making a detailed complaint to FAI about Bohs spending practices.
Points made by Rovers include ...
how Bohs spend 190K on training facilities when Rovers only cost 35000
how schoolboys cost Rovers 40K to run 22 schoolboys teams, but Bohs spend 130K on 15 teams made by Rovers
how still 4 bar staff being employed as profits have droped from 77K to 30K
FAI have said they will raise these point with Bohs.
Conway said to be outraged!
bhs
That's some localised inflation rate there. How much is the programme at Dalyer now? Does this zone of hyper inflation take in Eddie Rockets too?Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
So, Bohs SPENT €94,525 on Fundraising? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
I would expect the FAI would ask Bohs for timesheets or other employment records for their training, bar and administrative staff.
The fact that the audit has been signed off is irrelevant.
Ouchee.
This bit confuses me though -
Why do the FAI need to raise these points with Bohs*? If they think there's a problem, then they should have seen the figures already and raised the issue. If they think there's no problem, they don't need to raise the points with Bohs. What a great league that the FAI will only act if it's made really really obvious that they need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackholesun
* - it's a rhetorical question, before anyone answers seriously.
In a way it's good to see this kind of self policing. If clubs begin to report suspicious activities, rather than the old practice of saying "well if they're getting away with that then maybe we can too", the league will become a much more open and hopefully more sustainable place. The FAI will have to be careful here though or it could get incredibly petty with clubs reporting each other and demanding investigations over every little thing.
No its petty, small minded and bitter. Its the FAI's job to police not other clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
Before anybody says that it's sour grapes from Rovers, why has the salary cap protocol section in next season's licensing manual been amended to include "coaching" and "management" salary as going toward the 65%?
From eircom league to Stasi league... with snivelling losers posting grievances at every turn. It would only work if each club published accounts to the same standards and level of detail, which isn't going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
Your last point is well made.
Wasn't that always going to be the case though? I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was to initially cover just player wages, but was in time also to include coaching staff. Did I dream that then? 'Cos that kind of thing is happening with an alarming increase in frequency lately! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by stovelid
Not sure, but if so, it was obviously earmarked as a possible loophole and is something that they must be looking to finally close next season.Quote:
Originally Posted by stann
It was always going to be closed. However the FAI brought it in on a staged basis to allow clubs time.Quote:
Originally Posted by stovelid
Stage 1: 65% players only
Stage 2: 65% including management
I think the next stage we were told was 60% including management.
Previous posters like pineapple Stu are right on this.
If a club can ask such pertinent questions, what was the FAI doing re looking at these sort of issues ? Do they really take a good look at accounts, or juts put them away in a filing cabinet until someone groans about them ? Given the year we've had, you'd have hoped the Compliance Officer (if there is one) would be all over any form of information on accounts.
This does have the danger of appearing like pettiness from Rovers, but if there are questions here to answer then those questions remain - regardless of who asks them. Bohs fans will never acknowledge this, but questions aren't any less relevant just because you don't like whoever asks them.
And some of the figures quoted do suggest that there are indeed questions to be answered here.
Was there not an article from the Indo mid-season where it was claimed Padraig Smith(Compliance Officer) had queried Bohs financial state? Cue Bohs posters up in arms about how they were being singled out.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
Aren't they the perceptive ones? Perhaps they sensed the sour reality for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
If you think I'm going to co-operate in your little tribunal here, answering every bitter question you have concerning the cost of paper clips and beer mats, you're greatly mistaken.Quote:
Lets accept your point that this is us being "snivelling losers posting grievances" for the time being. Have you anything to say about the substantive point - a 1,900% increase in the cost of off the pitch activity with no discernable increase in said activity. The Bohs schoolkids didn't get medals this year because you hadn't paid the league fees. How does that tie in to the increased spend?
But I do have a simple question for you. Where is your club's dignity?
Bohs really are the Big Pub.
The most worrying thing is that while the rules are being tightened to prevent players being paid as coaches etc, this craic of paying them as barmen or any other non football role does not appear to be properly regulated under the new rules.
Charlie Haughey lives....Quote:
Originally Posted by BohDiddley
Just shows what a bitter crowd they are out in Wicklow. I thought we had seen the last of trying to win titles in the boardroom with the passing of Ollie Byrne (RIP), but it would seem Rovers have sunk to even lower levels.
At the 2009 Boh's AGM the schooboys expenses, fundraising costs etc were questioned by different members. The board gave a breakdown (that the auditor who was also present approved) of the costs.
Was it not also in 2005 when Rovers had the tippex out to submit their accounts to the FAI. Don't remember Bohs going crying to the FAI over the injustice of it all back then
Bitterness doesn't come into it,Rovers had no other choice, if the gypos are called out on being cute hoors now, it might reduce their opportunites for being cute hoors in future.
They didn't need to. The 400 club brought that to the attention of the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordned
I'm sure the club will respond to any questions the FAI have on the 'evidence', which, in case we forget, it has provided itself. The former youth director has already given some detail publicly on the Bohs forum, but I'm not going to be your kangaroo court messenger boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
None of it changes the fact that this is an unworthy reaction to losing the league. A new low.
Of course its bitterness. Lost the league so lets show how even more small time we are by whinging to the FAI about Bohs spending habits. All the more pathetic considering their history of not paying laundrette bills and blowing stadium cash on players wages.
Exactly. I'm sure Bohs weren't breaking any rules, but it's a loophole the FAI should be closing. It's shocking that the FAI are only looking into it now, dispite having access to the figures. Are they just stuffed in a drawer when submitted? They (the FAI) seem determined to shed licencing of every last thread of credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
So Bohs fans- in your opinion have your club been paying players via avenues other than the normal way or not?
Have they been paid as coaches?
Have they been paid as fundraisers?
Have they been paid as barmen?
And in each case did they actually perform the role? Or are the questions simply irrelevant because it was Rovers that asked them?
The participation agreement has a lot of references to the spirit as well as the letter of the rules, so a club could obey the letter but still find themselves in trouble.
Dismissing posts as "bitter" is against the rules here. If you have a counter point to make, then make it. If all you can add is "bitter", your post will be deleted. It's just a way of avoiding the issue, and will only lead to flame wars.
I'm assuming the insinuation is that the increased costs in running the underage teams, the bar and fundraising is because the 65% protocol is being circumvented by paying players as underage coaches, barstaff or fundraising staff?
Not an issue I guess if they're fulfilling those roles, but if it's a 65% dodge then the question is right to be asked, regardless of who it is doing the asking.
Edit: Just saw Mr.A's post there, same questions.
Any Bohs fans care to answer?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
I find it ironic that Bohs fans are accusing Shams of trying to win the title in the boardroom like they have the moral high ground. If Bohs have broken the salary cap, willingly and knowingly, and tried to cover it up through dodgy accounting, then that is also winning the title in the boardroom.
I can't understand the long term reasoning as to why Bohs fans should be so negative towards this move. Surely if the books are being cooked to pay the players extra pushing up running costs to an unmanageable level this is only going to hurt the club in the long run. Shel's overspending in the last few years should be the only point of reference Bohs need to know what can happen if they keep up that sort of jigacting.
Its a shame that it had to be Rovers to highlight the fact, the enevitable 'bitter Rovers' tag was always going to be thrown about. Clubs really do need to start lifting the lid to regulate eachother because the FAI don't seem to want to keep these clubs in line.
But surely its the FAI who will decide if rules have been broken.
There are ligitimate reasons for the costs of running the under age set up. Maybe by spending more on youth it shows a bigger committment then Rovers obviously have to their kids. And maybe it showed Bohs having to put the under age set up in order after not investing enough in previous years. Training facilities? Can you really compare DCU with where ever it is Rovers train? As for salaries being catagorised under non salary catagories - which is the fundamental question here. I wouldn't know, and few if any here can say for definate. But just beacuse a club spends more on youth and training facilities doesnt make them outside the rules does it? Let Rovers ask away but it matters not a jot what they alledge, or allude to, or accuse or whatever if the FAI decide they are happy with the audited accounts. Isn't that what was supposed to happen this month anyway under the licencing? Why Rovers feel the need to specifically raise these when surely the FAI are/will be looking at the same accounts and asking the same questions would lead some to believe its a point scoring exercise and sour grapes.
And could the FAI take this as a swipe at their credibility (i know !!) in a 'we dont trust you to be above board' sort of way.
Is it up to the clubs themselves to hire auditors etc and submit records to the league or is it one company contracted to do the whole league?
Technical victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by D24Hoop
On behalf of Wellvan Ltd I claim the worlds most creative accounts title.
Please send the prize to the liquidator.
Thanks.
Bitter words, Stu - bitter words...Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
;)
Yes, Rovers haven't said you broke the rules, only highlighted some concerns to the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
Is it not mentioned somewhere in this thread, that Bohs have such a commitment to their youth teams, that they didn't even pay the league fees?Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
If it doesn't matter, why are all you Boh's fans getting so worked up about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
Yes, because we all know that the FAI are such a shining example of a competent, well-run organisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
Boh's have been fiddling the books to stay under the 65% cap for awhile now and got away with it, so I assume our board (who at least don't contradict themselves and the known facts in every press release) decided to raise some concerns, as they are perfectly entitled to do. If there is nothing amiss in your books, you have nothing to worry about, so relax and chill out ;)
Could be some truth in this yet they charge €500 for a child to join so where is all that money watch this space
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenMcG
If the league fees were not paid the teams would not have been allowed to participate
Of course its the FAI who should decide if rules have been broken. But of more clubs were to cry foul wouldn't that mean less clubs would try to fiddle the accounts if they knew that other clubs could alert the FAI about such goings on. At the moment the FAI wouldn't notice a warning klaxon going off in their own office, so if someone is willing to tell them that there's a fire, shouldn't the FAI be grateful and do their best to put it out?? It would be far more damaging to the FAI's 'cred' if it didn't do anything at allQuote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
I'm sure with Rovers' actions other clubs doing the same as Derry or maybe Bohs (and I'm sure there's plenty) will think twice about doing the same next season.
Interesting. Just in regard to the possible employing of players as coaches, I read somewhere, I think it was a post from Battery Rover on here who would be in a position to know, that the only coaches that will be coming within the 65% rule are those working with the first team. Sounds entirely like the FAI to be seen to be closing a loophole but not actually doing anything
What exactly has Rovers' laundrette 5 years ago got to do with Bohs' spending this season?Quote:
Originally Posted by CMcC
I'm intrigued to know if Bohs are using the same laundrette maybe. Some faith in the LOI that place has if it is the case..or how desperate it is in the recession for customers maybe.