Bohs SCP discussion

[micls]

but on the other, Cork.

The budget they approved for us last year was perfectly sustainable with a wage bill of 12k.

The problem there was that we were only taking the **** when we submitted it and had no intention of sticking anywhere near it. Once this became obvious we were hit with a transfer embargo, the only thing the FAI could really do at that stage.

Of all the things the FAI have done wrong, I dont think they can be blamed for the madness of last season down here. What they'll do when it comes to this years license is a different story though.

[osarusan]

I don't think that any club should be allowed to budget for prize money, apart from what is guaranteed (ie, for finishing last).

[marinobohs]

My understanding is that one club has attempted to include future prizemoney and one club only.

Maybe there is an arguement for a formula. Maybe there isn't. But the issue here is one of a level playingfield, which the SCP is supposed to introduce. As such, if only one side is attempting to claim this as a revenue stream, the FAI should, rightfully, not allow the said club to do so. Which they are.

I wonder if it were Rovers trying to include this would you be so supportive of the idea?

Was it (inclusion of projected prize money) allowed last year - YES. Please direct us to the announcement of the rule change.
Whether or not it is appropriate to allow its inclusion is a moot point but there must some level of consistency in approach. the "make it up as we go along" approach so beloved by the FAI has made a joke of the 65% rule (and most other rules also).

If there was to be change I would also suggest looking at the issue of clubs reneging on contracts after the season starts - hardly within the "spirit" of the 65% rule. Players at certain clubs have (and no doubt will ) be put under pressure to cut agreed terms to "save" the club concerned. I would expect the players union to lobby on this issue.

[Ezeikial]

If there was to be change I would also suggest looking at the issue of clubs reneging on contracts after the season starts - hardly within the "spirit" of the 65% rule. Players at certain clubs have (and no doubt will ) be put under pressure to cut agreed terms to "save" the club concerned. I would expect the players union to lobby on this issue.

Is it okay with you if a club renegotiaties contracts before the season starts?

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2009/0205/bohemians.html

Bohemians' players accept reduced contracts

Thursday, 5 February 2009
The players at Bohemian FC have finally concluded contract re-negotiations and have signed new contracts on reduced terms.

This has been greeted by a statement of relief by the players, however, one in which they have professed unhappiness with the way in which this matter was approached.


The Players' Representative Committee has issued the following statement: 'We are the glad that this stressful situation has finally come to an end.

'The players have agreed that the interests of the club must take priority at this time and we are committed to the management goal of team strengthening.
'The serious wage cuts to which we have agreed may create some personal difficulties for us in our domestic lives but we are conscious that most of the country is in the same position.
'Contrary to popular belief, footballers in this league do not earn large sums of money and our careers are very short.
'It is also very disappointing that negotiations with certain players were handled in an unsatisfactory manner.

[sullanefc]

The whole notion of trying to forecast/guess what prize money/income a club will take in, in a given season is daft IMO.

Why not deal with concrete figures, whatever the clubs turnover was in the previous season, should be the budget for the following season. Take 65% of that, and thats your playing budget.

I doubt clubs' budgets yo-yo that much from year to year.

[Redie]

what have Sligo got to do with this?

How silly you Stu. did you not read his post in full- he was on about the only incumbant PL side going into the new season stronger on the pitch. Does he really have to spell it out that it's The Bit O Red he's referring to?

[Dalymountrower]

My understanding is that one club has attempted to include future prizemoney and one club only.

Maybe there is an arguement for a formula. Maybe there isn't. But the issue here is one of a level playingfield, which the SCP is supposed to introduce. As such, if only one side is attempting to claim this as a revenue stream, the FAI should, rightfully, not allow the said club to do so. Which they are.

I wonder if it were Rovers trying to include this would you be so supportive of the idea?

Hadn`t really looked at it as a Bohs /Rovers spat. There is surely a balance between encouraging prudent budgeting and nannyism. As the Cork and Derry situations has shown, any club can show pristine budgetary projection s and either completely ignore the budget or have a parallel set of books a la Max Bielenstock (not to mention submitting the same set of accounts for two seperate years). If a club is foolish enough to commit expenditure on the basis of winning titles or winning the lottery its the clubs problem if the income doesn`t materialise. This pre-supposes that the FAI will take the appropriate action in respect of such clubs.
You have already predicted that the FAI will be deducting points from Bohs at the beginning of this coming season so you seem to be confident of the FAI`s enforcement resolve ...so whats your problem? The FAI are itching to throw the book at Bohs and will do so if they get the opportunity

[blackholesun]

My understanding is that one club has attempted to include future prizemoney and one club only.

Maybe there is an arguement for a formula. Maybe there isn't. But the issue here is one of a level playingfield, which the SCP is supposed to introduce. As such, if only one side is attempting to claim this as a revenue stream, the FAI should, rightfully, not allow the said club to do so. Which they are.

I dont think clubs should be allowed to use projected prize money as part of their budget as it only encouarges the kind of reckless speculation that has got clubs into trouble in the past.

I would actually go one further and say again that I believe that the lob-sided league prize money structure actually encourages reckless speculation. The prizemoney gap between first and second place is way too high, and simlarly second to third. There should be less money awarded to teams finishing higher up the table and more money spread out across the league to better help clubs develop facilities and improve the league overall.

bhs

[marinobohs]

My understanding is that one club has attempted to include future prizemoney and one club only.

Maybe there is an arguement for a formula.y one side is attempting to claim this as a revenu Maybe there isn't. But the issue here is one of a level playingfield, which the SCP is supposed to introduce. As such, if onle stream, the FAI should, rightfully, not allow the said club to do so. Which they are.

I wonder if it were Rovers trying to include this would you be so supportive of the idea?

More rubbish, if a "level playing field" was the criteria behind the 65% rule then the FAI would simply set one budget for all clubs (obviously the fairest/most equitable approach).
The 65% rule is there to bring financial stability (stop laughing at the back ) if it ever achieves that it will be something but a level playing field ?

[pineapple stu]

The rules should be applied consistently is what BYCTWD meant. Obviously if you earn more money, you should be able to spend more money, but all clubs should operate within the same rules, with regards the SCP among others.

[marinobohs]

The rules should be applied consistently is what BYCTWD meant. Obviously if you earn more money, you should be able to spend more money, but all clubs should operate within the same rules, with regards the SCP among others.

It is ! open to any team to include it - problem is in having to deliver it. If shams had not choked on run in last year I seriously doubt Bohs would have made the 65%. Thank you shams

[RoversHead]

Im up for letting Bohs include the prize money and even a forcasted Euro millions win to get a licence ,Give em enough rope.Long may they continue to run there club along these lines.

[CMcC]

Mods, any chance this thread can be moved to the Shamrock Rovers section?

[stovelid]

It is ! open to any team to include it - problem is in having to deliver it. If shams had not choked on run in last year I seriously doubt Bohs would have made the 65%. Thank you shams

So you're essentially OK - even boastful - with the fact that if we had stayed on top of the league for just three more games, we would have punched a 140k hole (or whatever the difference is between second and first prize money) in your figures.

No wonder outsiders think this league is a joke. And that's as a LOI supporter - not a contestant in a Bohs/Rovers pissing contest.

[placid casual]

It is ! open to any team to include it - problem is in having to deliver it. If shams had not choked on run in last year I seriously doubt Bohs would have made the 65%. Thank you shams

only goes to prove the point-The world needs its share of ditch diggers.

[John83]

The whole notion of trying to forecast/guess what prize money/income a club will take in, in a given season is daft IMO.

Why not deal with concrete figures, whatever the clubs turnover was in the previous season, should be the budget for the following season. Take 65% of that, and thats your playing budget.

I doubt clubs' budgets yo-yo that much from year to year.

That would screw clubs who were promoted. Not every club - I doubt UCD's budget varies dramatically with it, but clubs like Dundalk and Galway have seen promotion come hand in hand with much increased attendances and local sponsorship.

[Ronnie]

That would screw clubs who were promoted. Not every club - I doubt UCD's budget varies dramatically with it, but clubs like Dundalk and Galway have seen promotion come hand in hand with much increased attendances and local sponsorship.

The whole notion of trying to forecast/guess what prize money/income a club will take in, in a given season is daft IMO.

Why not deal with concrete figures, whatever the clubs turnover was in the previous season, should be the budget for the following season. Take 65% of that, and thats your playing budget.

I doubt clubs' budgets yo-yo that much from year to year.

This is precisely the problem - basing your figures on the previous years income is lazy at best. Gates for a promoted team do up go up, but only in the first year up, then tend to come back down the second season up, meaning that a club shjould budget for less in their second season. How many times have we seen that?
Sponsorship - it might be possible to attract new sponsors, but if you have 100 small sponsors giving you €200pa, this does not autoamatically increase just because you get promotion. And going to these people year after year your going to lose some and will have to work hard to replace them.
Face it, if the clubs with the biggest budgets are losing the most their business model is busted and its time to start again. And before Rovers fans start preaching, l appreciate youse have learned the hard way.

[marinobohs]

So you're essentially OK - even boastful - with the fact that if we had stayed on top of the league for just three more games, we would have punched a 140k hole (or whatever the difference is between second and first prize money) in your figures.

No wonder outsiders think this league is a joke. And that's as a LOI supporter - not a contestant in a Bohs/Rovers pissing contest.

Not sure how stating a fact is "boastful" (gratefull to be honest) simply stating a fact obvious to anyone. Personally I thought it was a dangerous presumption at the start of the season (that we would win it) but it could now be argued it was a brave decision that worked - discuss !

[OneRedArmy]

Not sure how stating a fact is "boastful" (gratefull to be honest) simply stating a fact obvious to anyone. Personally I thought it was a dangerous presumption at the start of the season (that we would win it) but it could now be argued it was a brave decision that worked - discuss !

It wasn't brave, it was ridiculous financial management and the fact it was permitted shows up the FAI.

Budgets and forecasts should be done on a conservative basis and there's a simple way to apply this to prize money: allow the prize amount for the last placed team for the forthcoming season for budgeting purposes.

Simples, as the kids like to say these days...

[marinobohs]

How, by any criteria, has it worked? You are under transfer embargo ffs facing a possible points deduction. If this is what passes for joined up thinking in D7, no wonder you are in such a shambolic state off the pitch.

Regardless, the fact that the loophole has now been closed. So how much will you have to shave off this years projected budget to comply and what does this do for your prosepctive signings and manager situation? That is the question you should really be asking, rather than finding a nice bit of sand in Dollymount to bury your head in.

trophies won (concept you are probobly not familiar with) As a matter of interest how much of a drop off in crowds are Dundalk (novelty of promotion) and shams (novelty of new play pen) allowing for in budget for next year ?