Rovers make official complaint to FAI about Bohs spending practices

[BohDiddley]

What allegation have Rovers made?

Sorry. Semantics malfunction.

'Highlight a number of areas of concern'. Mud will stick.

They haven't even got the grace to come out and make the allegation.

[BohDiddley]

Rovers have just asked some questions.

Then why does the story, which emanates from Tallaght, say they've made an official complaint?

[EnglishSource]

Then why does the story, which emanates from Tallaght, say they've made an official complaint?

Emanates from Tallaght?

Comical Gerry is the only one quoted in the story.

[marinobohs]

Hold on, this is quite important. Are you saying that a detailed breakdown of your clubs submitted accounts over 5 years and the spending patterns that lie within cannot be classed as 'evidence'?

To me you are saying one of two things:

1: The Bohs accounts are fiction and cannot be trusted.

2: You are clutching at straws to a spectacular degree. That feeds into what Macy is saying that the inane level of response from Bohs fans on here leads to further questions.

So the tallaght renting boys want accounts checked back to 2005 ? grand idea but why stop there, a year or two further and perhaps we can identify the club that

• (1) misappropriated government grants
• (2) walked away from its debts without sanction (YET)
• (3) knowingly submitted fraudulent accounts to the licencing committee but retained a licence (bet derry would settle for 8 pt deduction)

The hypocracy of that small minded bitter club knows no bounds. Funny how they dont question clubs (like themselves) that have walked away from money owed to players yet complain about clubs that pay.

Great to see that looking for handouts still remains the only policy open South Dublin County councils tenants.

[theneutral]

Marino Bohs do you not see the irony in your bitter post calling Shamrock Rovers bitter?

I think everything has been said on this to be honest, its now in the hands of the FAI to deal with, If Bohs have done anything worng, theyll be reprimanded im sure, likewise if there in the clear then theyll be fine.

[pineapple stu]

marinobohs - don't go dragging the thread off topic. What Rovers' previous board did is of no relevance now.

(And I still find it amusing that, five pages after BYCTWD mentioned it, Bohs fans are still countering criticism of the club by comparing it to what Maguire did at Rovers)

[Tenderloins]

We are going on a newspaper article in the Mail.
I think its more than possible that Rovers (and possibly other clubs) made other allegations regarding Bohs finances to the FAI aside from the specific ones mentioned in the article and that the Mail decided against printing them.

[marinobohs]

Marino Bohs do you not see the irony in your bitter post calling Shamrock Rovers bitter?

I think everything has been said on this to be honest, its now in the hands of the FAI to deal with, If Bohs have done anything worng, theyll be reprimanded im sure, likewise if there in the clear then theyll be fine.

Not so much bitter as true. when SRFC had their "troubles" they got away with murder due to the smypathy shown by other clubs. To now be throwing mud about other clubs is pretty rich (something rare in LOI circles ). The timing of the complaint is especially galling and reeks of sour grapes at how Bohs beat them in the title race.

I deliberately avoided responding to the allegations as I agree it is a matter for the FAI as to compliance with the 65% rule. Lets hope they are as dilligent on this as they were in dealing with complaints against SRFC

[marinobohs]

marinobohs - don't go dragging the thread off topic. What Rovers' previous board did is of no relevance now.

(And I still find it amusing that, five pages after BYCTWD mentioned it, Bohs fans are still countering criticism of the club by comparing it to what Maguire did at Rovers)

so it is OK to question bohs finances back to 2005 but not question what SRFC did historically ? if you cannot see the hypocracy of that aurgument you should consider a season ticket at Tallaght next year.

if SRFC are not responsible for what happened before 2005 can they please stop claiming all the throphys won before that ? it really is one or the other.

As stated in previous post I am not addressing the issues simply commenting on the source of the complaint (hope that explains it for you).

[OneRedArmy]

I deliberately avoided responding to the allegations as I agree it is a matter for the FAI as to compliance with the 65% rule.

So the responsibility for compliance with the rulebook lies with the person responsible for setting and enforcing the rules, not the people who the rules apply to?

Computer says noooooooooo.

[Dalymountrower]

BYCTWD Quote:
. This thread is about Bohs 1,900% increase in off the pitch spending with no clear increase in activity around the time of the wage cap. You can try and divert till the cows come home, but the salient fact is that aside from LukeO, not one Bohs fan has made any effort to address these issues.

LukeO dealt with the points made, comprehensively and factually. Do you want Bohs fans to respond with a different set of facts that fits in with your initial premise that we have something to hide??? It would be bit too much to hope that we are as devious and Machiavellian as many Posters here seem to think...back handed compliment I suppose.
BYCNTWD I think its hilarious to witness the zealousness of the converts to Fiscal Rectitude from Tallaght. If there one thing that is sure to galvanise Bohs fans is a move against us prompted by the former bankrupts. Rovers challenging us for the title or winning by us defaulting on the SCP was enough to launch up to a dozen heavily supported fundraisers from last July which has comfortaby steered us to come within the 65%. This latest nonsense will do the same..... so keep stirring that pot Hoops

[marinobohs]

So the responsibility for compliance with the rulebook lies with the person responsible for setting and enforcing the rules, not the people who the rules apply to?

Computer says noooooooooo.

yep, got me, ENFORCEMENT of the 65% rule is responsibility of the FAI (but I'm sure you know that )

[CharlesThompson]

Couple of points:

I will love it, just love it when Bohs have been cleared of all these unfortunate allegations (for I am confident that is what they are).

Any indignation or defensive procrastinations by Bohs supporters here are simply as a result of the incredible ferocity of the vast majority of posters baying for blood. Guilty we are apparently before we prove our innocence.

I must say that when I initially read the figures as outlined in the D.M. my eyebrows were raised. However on closer inspection (if any of you actually bothered to inspect closer than the article) there are any number of valid reasons for the apparent increases as outlined. And indeed explanations outlined by board members on the Bohs M.B. and kindly directed by LukeO within this thread. Although it would appear that they have been ignored by the Agendista who it would appear are already sharpening their knives for the bloodbath.

In fact as it's already been alluded to in this thread, if Bohs are successful in proving their innocence, it seems that the minds of a fair few posters in here have already made their minds up that the FAI have 'fudged' their responsibilities. Laughable in the extreme. Shameful in the other extreme.

It has also been questioned ad infinitum early in this thread as to why we had a transfer embargo placed upon us during the season - almost to the degree that because we were then the default position would remain and we would thus remain in contempt of the law. The simple answer here is that we had the embargo placed on the club because we were sailing above the agreed template for wages at that point. This was found by the FAI (not Shams or anybody else) because of the audit system that every other club had to submit the same information for. Thanks to this system, we, the members and supporters were in a positon to take measures to minimize our risk and take affirmative action with the target of bringing the club back under the threshold and therefore keep us within the rules. I wonder is this the splinter that sticks in the craw?

Question, has it not passed the small brains that post here that having found ourselves in the position to have this embargo placed upon us that a tremendous amount of work was carried out in fundraising activity so as to bring the club back within the boundaries of the law? Fundraising that every club would love supporters and members to take a part in?

Let me pin my colours to the mast here. If Bohs are found to be guilty of wrongdoing then we will take it on the chin and deal with it.

Leaving aside the double standard moderation, what is hard to take reading through the pre schadenfruede bile on this thread is the contemptible, accusatory, holier than thou stance the usual suspects are taking on this issue.

People in glass houses and all that.

[marinobohs]

Finances from 05 to date.

Come on, you can do a lot better than that.

So the world started in 2005 ???? When are you guys going to decide if you are (A) Shamrock Rovers 1927 and all the baggage/ throphies that go with that OR (B) a new club set up in 2005 (almost as successful as Sporting Fingal) ?
My point is that Bohs accounts in previous years have been signed off by the FAI (like it or not). if you want to reopen them then you should be prepared to reopen the sins of your own club (whichever one it is).
Once again, I am not responding to individual points as most of them are so ridiculous as to not deserve a response. Happy to let the FAI do their job.

[BohDiddley]

What Rovers' previous board did is of no relevance now.

That's entirely a matter of opinion. The Shamrock non-allegations to which you give such credence refer to 2005 to 2008. The board of BFC as currently constituted is very different from the one that sat during that period.

Please square that in terms of the moderating warning you've issued, or are we on a level playing field here?

[CharlesThompson]

What exactly is this double standard moderation of which you are going on about?

The ones Pineapple Stu is trying to defend (absurdly IMO) in his response - #145 - I'm wondering now if you're picking and choosing which posts you are reading?

[topia]

Nope, he got an infraction for dismissing John83's post purely because he was a UCD fan, which is against the rules. Perhaps you should read up on them.

The rules need an overhaul if you can go round giving infractions because somebody says something you dont like to your mate. That was more a comment on the attendence of UCD matches hardly having problems with the guards rather than dismissing his opinion.

Im sure throughout this thread people have dismissed bohs fans opinions in this thread as them 'having their heads in the sand' is that not dismissing a fans opinion because of who they support? Did all these people get infractions???

Why is 2005 the starting point in all this?

Bohs did not expect rovers to be docked points over the racism incident they merely reported it surely it would have been disrespectful to ndo not to report it? You werent cleared of racism...insufficient evidence was the conclusion...for some reason.

Also TheNeutral you are the least neutral poster ever.

[CharlesThompson]

Last time I'll humour this, but Rover "got away with murder" as you put it, because it was clear that there was a sincere effort by the new owners / fans to clean up the club and ensure it never happened again.

Make me laugh why doncha! I suppose we all should be happy so that the paedophile priests that 'owned up' were right to accept their slap on the wrist and sent off to childcare facilities in other areas of the country because they admitted they were wrong.

[theneutral]

Call it what you want Topia, i dont support any team, go to matches when i can, will openly admit that oweing to experiences over the years that Bohs would be my least favourite club of the lot but still makes me a neutral!

Thread seems to be getting dragged off topic. ALso its bareing more than a striking resemblence to the Racism thread a few months back, except everybody has swapped shoes.

[CharlesThompson]

You mean the specific allegtation about a specific player that he has removed in accordance with site rules?

Is there some brain-numbing contagent seeping into the D7 water supply or something?

Contagent?

Removed or not, it didn't go down without a fight I think you'll agree.

Convenient of you all the same to take possibly the least important part of my post to dissect.