Bohs SCP discussion

I dont know what the fuss about Bohs signing players is.

People are making it out as if it's a big secret whether the embargo will be lifted or not and only the FAI know.

If Bohs finished the season under 65% it will be lifted, given that Bohs will know their exact income and expenditure they will already be well aware if the embargo will be lifted or not, regardless of official confirmation. Its not a case of the FAi just deciding they dont want them to sign players, itl just come down to the numbers.

Bohs obviously believe they are under 65% and in fairness, they should know so I dont see why they shouldnt be signing players, the rest will simply be a formality (unless Bohs accountants literally cannot count)

Whether its smart to be signing what would be seen to be 'big money' players is another story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Bohs obviously believe they are under 65% and in fairness, they should know so I dont see why they shouldnt be signing players

---

In fairness, that's a bit naive. It's perfectly logical (and I'm not saying this is what's happening before Bohs fans go mad) that the Bohs directors see 2010 as their last chance saloon, and so they want to spend as much as possible assembling the squad they feel will give them the best chance at CL/UEFA Cup group qualification. They may feel an extra E1m of debt is worth the gamble of trying to clear it all. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

In fairness, that's a bit naive. It's perfectly logical (and I'm not saying this is what's happening before Bohs fans go mad) that the Bohs directors see 2010 as their last chance saloon, and so they want to spend as much as possible assembling the squad they feel will give them the best chance at CL/UEFA Cup group qualification. They may feel an extra E1m of debt is worth the gamble of trying to clear it all. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that.

---

It's not logical though. Because if that were the case, and they werent under last years 65%, then the embargo won't be lifted and these players won't be able to playe anyway, something Im sure the Bohs board are well aware of.

The rest of your post is still quite possible as it's not linked to last years embargo at all, hence my sentence about whether signing all these players is a smart thing or not, but that will be for next seasons wage cap, not this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

It's not logical though. Because if that were the case, and they werent under last years 65%, then the embargo won't be lifted and these players won't be able to playe anyway, something Im sure the Bohs board are well aware of.

The rest of your post is still quite possible as it's not linked to last years embargo at all, hence my sentence about whether signing all these players is a smart thing or not, but that will be for next seasons wage cap, not this one.

---

I dunno... It's the FAI... I'd imagine the embargo will be lifted... Can't imagine Bohs would have enough players to make a squad if it wasn't... Unless not many of their squad was out of contract at the end of the season

I wouldn't be surprised if Bohs feel they have the basis of a deal agreed to settle the dispute over Dalymount. There was a lot of talk of them coming to an arrangement to sell it to Pascal Conroy who was the developer who had taken them to court. Obviously Liam Carroll is in the mix there too but by the looks of things he's in no position to follow through on the original deal anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomofman

I dunno... It's the FAI... I'd imagine the embargo will be lifted... Can't imagine Bohs would have enough players to make a squad if it wasn't... Unless not many of their squad was out of contract at the end of the season

---

A lot of imagining going on here. The reality is that Bohs have established their budget for 2010. They have signed players within that budget and may sign one or two more given that Deegans departure has freed up a bigger than average wage and that there may also be some transfer/compensation arising from that. In the extremely unlikely event of If FAI not agreeing to register those players, it will be for a reason other than the SCP protocol for 2009 or for the 2010 projected budget




pineapple stu

In fairness, that's a bit naive. It's perfectly logical (and I'm not saying this is what's happening before Bohs fans go mad) that the Bohs directors see 2010 as their last chance saloon, and so they want to spend as much as possible assembling the squad they feel will give them the best chance at CL/UEFA Cup group qualification. They may feel an extra E1m of debt is worth the gamble of trying to clear it all. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that.


So can we be clear that you are saying that you are not saying that any of the above is happening or are you saying that its logical that some of the above might happen and you would like to record your objections in advance if they do?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomofman

I dunno... It's the FAI... I'd imagine the embargo will be lifted... Can't imagine Bohs would have enough players to make a squad if it wasn't... Unless not many of their squad was out of contract at the end of the season

---

Bohs know by now if the embargo will be lifted or not.

Im not saying it's sensible to buy all these players, I'm saying the FAi is not going to stop them as some people were claiming above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Bohs know by now if the embargo will be lifted or not.

Im not saying it's sensible to buy all these players, I'm saying the FAi is not going to stop them as some people were claiming above.

---

That's what I was trying to say... I just don't know if Bohs would have a squad or not if the embargo wasn't lifted...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

In fairness, that's a bit naive. It's perfectly logical (and I'm not saying this is what's happening before Bohs fans go mad) that the Bohs directors see 2010 as their last chance saloon, and so they want to spend as much as possible assembling the squad they feel will give them the best chance at CL/UEFA Cup group qualification. They may feel an extra E1m of debt is worth the gamble of trying to clear it all. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that.

---

Stu, im going to assume you know more than your letting on and that your post is a bit of an attempt to stir...

Theres 2 issues with Bohs:-

Short Term. We have slashed our budget again this year and have plans for marketing and fundraising all season long. I am confident that staying within the SCP again wont be an issue this year. Good players are available for far cheaper wages this off season (hence the quality of our signings) and we have released all our high earners bar Byrne and Heary. CL qualification shouldnt and im assuming wont figure in our budget this year.

Long Term. Its common knowledge that we have a large overdraft that is due for repayment within a couple of years. The new board are examining ways to pay for the sins of the previous board and it seems likely that this will be achieved through selling Dalymount (properly this time). Im confident in their ability to do that. Its not ideal but that is where the lack of professionalism and stupidity of the previous board has left us.


Please bear in mind that this is coming from a fan. Im speaking for myself and its just my opinion of things and i could very well be wrong. I dont expect my post to be forensically examined for faint traces of inaccuracy or bull**** cos, truth be told, youll probably find some - ive dabbled in the past.

I know this is off topic and a long way down the road but.. where would Bohs go if they sell Dalymount?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomofman

I know this is off topic and a long way down the road but.. where would Bohs go if they sell Dalymount?

---

The 12 acres is normally quiet during ther summer months is it not?
every little helps;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

.............unless Bohs accountants literally cannot count

---

Thats an outrageous suggestion! What possible evidence have you got for this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Stu, im going to assume you know more than your letting on and that your post is a bit of an attempt to stir...

---

Not everything you don't want to hear is a stir, SkStu. However, at the risk of going off topic, I'll just very briefly back it up for you if you want.

First off, as stated, my post was a theory to fit micls' post. I'm obviously not stating it's true. That seems to have confused dalymountrower, so I'll say it again here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

I am confident that staying within the SCP again wont be an issue this year. Good players are available for far cheaper wages this off season

---

Your part on selling Dalymount again to clear debts makes perfect sense. I don't share your confidence in getting under 65%, however, and I've not seen any back up for this other than "The board told us".

In last year's accounts, total income was E3.05m, and players' wages were E1.95m - SCP% of 64%. Hence, you get a licence for 2009.

I think it's fair to say that Liam Carroll won't be paying E1m this year - partly because he's currently sueing you over the deal, and partly because he doesn't have any money. Take that money out, and let's say everything else stays the same (obviously open for debate), and you need to take E600k off wages to meet the 65% cap.

In addition, I think this year, the SCP changes from players only to players and management/technical staff. In that case, you need to take E1m off your wage budget - halve it, in other words. I appreciate you saying the wages bill has been reduced, but you'll understand that people are very sceptical as to whether enough has been done, particularly given you're already under a transfer embargo for exceeding 65% from early on in the year.

The alternative is that you need to find an extra E1.5m in income on last year to meet the 65% cap (the E1m from Liam Carroll plus the E400k managers' salaries grossed up by 65%). You'll understand that people are sceptical as to whether that's been done also.

I know you'd like all negative talk about Bohs to be stopped, but those are some facts, and I think it's fair for people to wonder about Bohs signing new players at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Not everything you don't want to hear is a stir, SkStu. However, at the risk of going off topic, I'll just very briefly back it up for you if you want.

First off, as stated, my post was a theory to fit micls' post.

---

But my post was about last years salary cap, and people claiming Bohs shouldnt be signing people because of the transfer embargo, and you seem to be talking about next year's salary cap in your posts, which is a completely different matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I think it's fair to say that Liam Carroll won't be paying E1m this year - partly because he's currently sueing you over the deal, and partly because he doesn't have any money.

---

Is he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

But my post was about last year's salary cap, and people claiming Bohs shouldnt be signing people because of the transfer embargo, and you seem to be talking about next year's salary cap in your posts, which is a completely different matter.

---

I'm talking about the 2009 salary cap (I'm extrapolating 2009 figures from 2008's accounts), which is the same as you're talking about here (I think) -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

If Bohs finished the season under 65% it will be lifted, given that Bohs will know their exact income and expenditure[...]Bohs obviously believe they are under 65% and in fairness, they should know so I dont see why they shouldnt be signing players

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LukeO

Is he?

---

I apologise; you're appealing the decision to the Supreme Court at the moment; either way, the point is that Carroll is unlikely to be paying the E1m in 2009 (which you seem to agree with given you didn't challenge that part of my post).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I apologise; you're appealing the decision to the Supreme Court at the moment; either way, the point is that Carroll is unlikely to be paying the E1m in 2009 (which you seem to agree with given you didn't challenge that part of my post).

---

That's Albion Properties, headed by Pascal Conroy, not Liam Carroll. As I said in a previous post, I reckon Bohs will do a deal to sell Dalyer to Albion at a lower price than Carroll's deal.

fair enough Stu, i get that you werent having a go and your questions, at face value, appear valid. Unfortunately im just an exiled fan who contributes as much as possible to the club i love but i dont have the answers to your questions and the last person who tried answering some questions here got banned.

I have faith in the way the club has conducted its business since the new board was elected. The fans, members and club have never been so united in moving Bohemians forward the right way. I take hope from that but i guess i will have to wait and see in terms of the points you have raised.

What gets me is that Bohemians have been touted as dead on its feet since i started reading this forum and the fact is that, despite the division in the club due to its being run by a pack of fools for a long, long time, we are still standing, still paying players wages, still paying bills, still successful and this is all after the (relative) demises of Rovers, Shels, Drogheda, Cobh, Limerick, Kilkenny City, Dublin City, Derry and Cork.

Like i said, things are not perfect but i have confidence in our current board. We'll just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I apologise; you're appealing the decision to the Supreme Court at the moment; either way, the point is that Carroll is unlikely to be paying the E1m in 2009 (which you seem to agree with given you didn't challenge that part of my post).

---

You can infer whatever you like.

We aren't involved in any court cases with Liam Carroll (not at the moment anyway!), it was Pascal Conroy who we were up against in court. At least get your basic facts straight. Otherwise it makes you look like you haven't a clue what you're talking about..................

Anyway, keep up Stuey - http://www.independent.ie/business/i...l-1935831.html , http://www.thebohs.com/forum/viewtop...bb46d7e#212093

welcome back LukeO, it seems my relentless campaign to have you reinstated worked. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

welcome back LukeO, it seems my relentless campaign to have you reinstated worked. ;)

---

It was only a month's ban. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LukeO

It was only a month's ban. ;)

---

thats what they told you - you have no idea what was going on behind the scenes. Back in time for christmas, it was the best i could do. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Not everything you don't want to hear is a stir, SkStu. However, at the risk of going off topic, I'll just very briefly back it up for you if you want.

First off, as stated, my post was a theory to fit micls' post. I'm obviously not stating it's true. That seems to have confused dalymountrower, so I'll say it again here.


No, I`m not confused at all at your motives in arriving at your hypothetical scenario, using Micls post to justify your flight of fantasy is confusing though


Your part on selling Dalymount again to clear debts makes perfect sense. I don't share your confidence in getting under 65%, however, and I've not seen any back up for this other than "The board told us".

Hard fund raising work, significant cuts in salaries for players and redundancies for some non -playing staff were the painful realities of getting below the 65% cap for 2009.

In last year's accounts, total income was E3.05m, and players' wages were E1.95m - SCP% of 64%. Hence, you get a licence for 2009.

I think it's fair to say that Liam Carroll won't be paying E1m this year - partly because he's currently sueing you over the deal, and partly because he doesn't have any money.

News to me that Liam Carroll is sueing over a deal that he can`t complete? When did this happen Stu?. There are ongoing proceedings between Bohs and Albion properties/Paschal Conroy is that what you`re referring to

Take that money out, and let's say everything else stays the same (obviously open for debate), and you need to take E600k off wages to meet the 65% cap.


Well nothing did stay the same, expenditure is down for 09 , income from fundraising, prize money, euro qualification has had to offset Liam Carrol being unable to continue his contracted payments. Due to the hard work of players,fans and members we have achieved that


In addition, I think this year, the SCP changes from players only to players and management/technical staff. In that case, you need to take E1m off your wage budget - halve it, in other words. I appreciate you saying the wages bill has been reduced, but you'll understand that people are very sceptical as to whether enough has been done, particularly given you're already under a transfer embargo for exceeding 65% from early on in the year.

The alternative is that you need to find an extra E1.5m in income on last year to meet the 65% cap (the E1m from Liam Carroll plus the E400k managers' salaries grossed up by 65%). You'll understand that people are sceptical as to whether that's been done also.

Well we don`t ,as you`ve based your figures on a hypothetical scenario where expenditure was not cut in 2009

I know you'd like all negative talk about Bohs to be stopped, but those are some facts, and I think it's fair for people to wonder about Bohs signing new players at the moment.

---

Some facts , mostly conjecture though ,in fairness.
The negative talk goes with the territory when you dominate the league for two years. Bohs and our financial travails have been forensically examined (and our triumph in meeting the SCP against the odds being ignored in this Forum). I genuinely think that the level of scrutiny has helped to galvanise our response. Its a pity that the same level of scrutiny wasn`t applied to Derry , as it may have saved them from the recent debacle,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I'm talking about the 2009 salary cap (I'm extrapolating 2009 figures from 2008's accounts), which is the same as you're talking about here (I think) -




I apologise; you're appealing the decision to the Supreme Court at the moment; either way, the point is that Carroll is unlikely to be paying the E1m in 2009 (which you seem to agree with given you didn't challenge that part of my post).

---

Last I heard Liam Carroll was free to go ahead and buy Dalymount so he certainly should be paying Bohs at least 1m this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by de bowez

Last I heard Liam Carroll was free to go ahead and buy Dalymount so he certainly should be paying Bohs at least 1m this year.

---

News to me, and the answer to the question I was going to pose LukeO, who chose to ignore almost everything in my post to pick up on one relatively minor technicality - did Liam Carroll pay the E1m to Bohs this year?

There's conflicting info on this - LukeO's link includes the line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Indo

Further payments from Danninger were put on hold pending completion of the turf war with Mr Conroy.

---

which directly conflicts with de bowez's post. In that case, the numbers in my post (the important bit) are correct, even if the means of arriving at them (less important) is slightly out. Easy thing to mix up Bohs' many court appearances. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

News to me, and the answer to the question I was going to pose LukeO, who chose to ignore almost everything in my post to pick up on one relatively minor technicality - did Liam Carroll pay the E1m to Bohs this year?

There's conflicting info on this - LukeO's link includes the line


which directly conflicts with de bowez's post. In that case, the numbers in my post (the important bit) are correct, even if the means of arriving at them (less important) is slightly out. Easy thing to mix up Bohs' many court appearances. ;)

---

BOHEMIANS hope to sell Dalymount Park in a deal worth what SunSport understands to be up to €35million after they began clearing up the legal mess surrounding their ground.

At an EGM at DCU last night, members were shown a four-point plan designed to facilitate the sale of Dalymount and a move to a purpose-built stadium.

It was drawn up in a bid to end the log-jam caused by separate and conflicting deals with two companies, Danninger and Albion Properties.

And — after members voted in favour of the plan in an overwhelming majority — Bohs hope to press ahead with a deal to sell the entire ground to Albion, owners of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre.

The vote also ensures Bohs will comply with the Salary Cost Protocol which dictates players' wages must not exceed 65 per cent of revenue.

They will achieve that by drawing down a portion of a €1m payment due from Albion.

The sale of Dalymount will provide Bohs with a cash payment and a new stadium roughly equal in value.

Albion will build a ground within the club's catchment area, on the northside of the city but within the M50 perimeter as well as paying an eight-figure cash payment which would secure the club's long-term future.

In 2012, Bohs are due to begin repayments to Zurich Bank on a €4m loan secured on the car park on the Connacht Street [sic!] side of the ground, currently leased to the Mater Hospital.

The proposal put to members was:

1) Bohs will repay €1.1m to Albion Properties, paid for purchase of parcel of land at Tramway End.

2) Albion will pay €1m to Bohs to secure an option to buy Dalymount, subject to members' approval.

3) Danninger will be given full title to Dalymount Park. If Danninger can proceed with original deal, Bohs will pay €10m to Albion. If not, Bohs will negotiate sale to Albion.

4) If the deal to sell the ground is not approved, Albion will keep parcel of land at Tramway End but Bohs will retain the above €1m payment.

Bohs were forced to go back to the drawing board when they lost a High Court case to Albion in November last year. Mr Justice John Edwards ruled that Bohs and Albion DID have an agreement in place concerning the sale of land at the Tramway End.

The judge rejected Bohs' claim that monies received from Albion were goodwill gestures to facilitate a potential future deal rather than a payment for an agreed sale.

That scuppered a deal Bohs had subsequently struck with Danninger — a Liam Carroll company — to sell the entire ground in return for a new 10,000-seater stadium in Harristown and €38.125m in cash.

Bohs have already received in the region of €2.6m from Danninger and, following last night's vote, Carroll can press ahead with that deal.

But, because of the developer's mounting financial problems, it is thought highly unlikely he will be in a position to do so but Bohs would not be obliged to repay the €2.6m.

A Bohs spokesman said: "There is no question of us being in breach of contract with Danninger as we are happy for Plan A to proceed. But, if that cannot happen, this is Plan B."

Bohs had held talks with Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council about a new ground development as well as with the FAI who are keen on a groundshare with Shelbourne.

Crucially, none of those organisations had any money to bring to the table, leading Bohs to try to come to an agreement with Pascal Conroy of Albion.

Conroy has long been interested in acquiring Dalymount to allow a financially-viable expansion of the shopping centre. Bohs have not ruled out the possibility of facilitating tenants at a new ground with Shels — who are expected to be forced out of Tolka Park in the near future — the obvious candidates.

Shels already hope to base themselves in Dalymount for next season, although no deal has been concluded. __________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by de bowez

The vote also ensures Bohs will comply with the Salary Cost Protocol which dictates players' wages must not exceed 65 per cent of revenue.

They will achieve that by drawing down a portion of a €1m payment due from Albion.

The proposal put to members was:

1) Bohs will repay €1.1m to Albion Properties, paid for purchase of parcel of land at Tramway End.

2) Albion will pay €1m to Bohs to secure an option to buy Dalymount, subject to members' approval.

---

Am I reading this right, Bohs pay Albion €1.1m, Albion pay Bohs €1m and Bohs include the €1m as part of their income for the SCP? That can't be allowed surely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Am I reading this right, Bohs pay Albion €1.1m, Albion pay Bohs €1m and Bohs include the €1m as part of their income for the SCP? That can't be allowed surely.

---

I'm sure they won't be doing this. Besides, even if they tried I'm sure Shamrock's board would send a letter questioning the accounts to the papers and FAI in their self appointed position as guardians of the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Am I reading this right, Bohs pay Albion €1.1m, Albion pay Bohs €1m and Bohs include the €1m as part of their income for the SCP? That can't be allowed surely.

---

No, as far as I know its a legal matter. We repay Albion the money they paid us years ago and that whole dispute is settled. They no longer have any rights to any portion of Dalymount. Now in a completely new deal they have bought first option to buy Dalymount if Carroll doesnt go through with buying Dalymount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wexfordned

I'm sure they won't be doing this. Besides, even if they tried I'm sure Shamrock's board would send a letter questioning the accounts to the papers and FAI in their self appointed position as guardians of the league.

---

I would hope they would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Am I reading this right, Bohs pay Albion €1.1m, Albion pay Bohs €1m and Bohs include the €1m as part of their income for the SCP? That can't be allowed surely.

---

Reminds me of this thread on the Drogheda forum where it was implied that Bohs' underage expenses were high because DCU charged a lot, while underage income was high because DCU sponsored some of the underage teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Reminds me of this thread on the Drogheda forum where it was implied that Bohs' underage expenses were high because DCU charged a lot, while underage income was high because DCU sponsored some of the underage teams.

---

Can`t access that link without registering. So you are implying that DCU and Bohs are conspiring to allow Bohs to circumvent the SCP? Is that a better source than your erroneous and inflammatory assertion that Bohs are being sued by Liam Carroll? The few remaining Bohs fans that peruse this Forum might be forgiven for being sceptical about any assertions made by you on Bohs related matters. Moderator in name only when it comes to Bohs it would appear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Am I reading this right, Bohs pay Albion €1.1m, Albion pay Bohs €1m and Bohs include the €1m as part of their income for the SCP? That can't be allowed surely.

---

Seems fine to me. They're seperate land deals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalymountrower

Can`t access that link without registering

---

Do feel free to read it before going off on a whine; it really undermines everything you say. The suggestion in fact comes from one of your own fans in the thread. Of course, once people added two and two, he swiftly went into denial mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Do feel free to read it before going off on a whine; it really undermines everything you say. The suggestion in fact comes from one of your own fans in the thread. Of course, once people added two and two, he swiftly went into denial mode.

---

Answer the question. Are you implying that DCU and Bohs have concocted a commercial transaction to circumvent the rules of the FAI re the SCP.?

Do what I told you. Read the thread where you'll see a Bohs fan say that they pay fees to DCU for facilities, and that DCU sponsor the underage teams, giving rise to rather high underage expense and income figures, as previously noted by others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Do feel free to read it before going off on a whine; it really undermines everything you say. The suggestion in fact comes from one of your own fans in the thread. Of course, once people added two and two, he swiftly went into denial mode.

---

I read the extensive coverage of this issue on the FOOT.IE forum where you made your usual voluminous contribution. Objections by Bohs fans to the level of unfounded conjecture at that point, including the naming of a Bohs player as being part of a a SCP avoiding dodgey deal, led to the usual banning and infractions being dished out to those raising the objections.
I am intrigued that you quoted a link to another site rather than the link to the FOOT.IE debate on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalymountrower

Can`t access that link without registering.

---

The post which Stu referred to is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celdrog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Don't know if they all have different sponsors but the older teams are sponsored by DCU sports afaik.

---

Hold on a second - your expenditure is partly down to DCU being expensive to train in yet your income is DCU sponsoring your teams.
The D hotel could sponsor the Drogs for €1 million and then charge €1M to rent out a room. That's €1M income which counts towards the salary cap protocol buts its not real money

---

Nobody is saying that Bohs and DCU have a cosy arrangement for cheating the SCP, but I am still curious as to how an underage set-up generates €110k as income for the club. Why don't DCU just give the facilities at a discount price or free? A lot of that €110k income is going back to DCU.
Anyway the discussion above was ended by BP calling me an internerd warrior and Stu a toolbag:rolleyes:

If Bohs give Albion €1.1M and then get €1M back in two separate transactions, then I think that is fair enough. Use the €900k to help you pay higher wages, its not real money and would just become debt at the end of the year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celdrog

The post which Stu referred to is:


Nobody is saying that Bohs and DCU have a cosy arrangement for cheating the SCP, but I am still curious as to how an underage set-up generates €110k as income for the club. Why don't DCU just give the facilities at a discount price or free? A lot of that €110k income is going back to DCU.
Anyway the discussion above was ended by BP calling me an internerd warrior and Stu a toolbag:rolleyes:

If Bohs give Albion €1.1M and then get €1M back in two separate transactions, then I think that is fair enough. Use the €900k to help you pay higher wages, its not real money and would just become debt at the end of the year.

---

There was no need for this thread to have been started. Once again it's decending into innuendo & bulls**t that was the rovers objection thread.

Every club has to submit monthly accounts. You can be assured Bohs were under 65% at end of November or you would have had all the Rovers/UCD keyboard warriors on this site with links to every piece on the web they could find & screaming relegation!!!

Also as part of the licencing requirements for 2010 budgets for next season have to be submitted so why shouldn't bohs sign players based on this budget. Again if the FAI had rejected boh's budget you can be sure people would have been on this site bit*hing & moaning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wexfordned

I'm sure they won't be doing this. Besides, even if they tried I'm sure Shamrock's board would send a letter questioning the accounts to the papers and FAI in their self appointed position as guardians of the league.

---

That would be silly. What we should do though is sign all the players who won't sign for us because we won't pay them big money, put two of them down as working in the club shop as well, give the schoolboy section a golden handshake(on paper anyway), and break the 65% all season until the last week of the season. That should see us ok.