"Conway accepted the schoolboys outlay was steep but said the club forked out 60,000 in 2008 on kitting out teams"
If the net cost to Bohs of running the schoolboys was only 20K, then why is he admitting the "outlay was steep"?
Did Bohs declare the 110K raised by the schoolboys section in their main accounts as income alongside 130K spent in the area as expenses.
Or did they just declare the net 20K subsidy to the schoolboys as an expense?
If any club had an 110K extra income on the books would entitle them to spend an extra 65% of 110K = 71K on first team players wages and in effect help bypass the spirit of the 65% rule!
bhs
Bookmarks