QuoteIm 32.
You claimed that Bohs would not get the transfer embargo lifted, that we would be docked points and relegated if we were lucky. You've changed that now. Problem?
i dont have time to go trawling through previous threads (well i do have the time, just not the inclination) to show you what you have said in the past - thats what got me so aggravated in the past. If you are changing your tune now to suit what you now believe, then thats fine. Just wanted to clarify.
Im 32.
You claimed that Bohs would not get the transfer embargo lifted, that we would be docked points and relegated if we were lucky. You've changed that now. Problem?
This smacks of Shels all over again. Drawing down buckets of cash for operating expenses against a declining asset. Whatever about the short-term (SCP for 2010) the medium to longer term doesn't look rosy.
Yet another case of spectacularly inept LoI financial mismanagement.
I don't know why you bother Stu. There's a fair number of posters on this MB waiting/willing/sniffing blood in the shadows of Dalymount Park for a long time. Funnily enough, most of them support clubs that have gone through their own "difficulties" in recent times.Originally Posted by SkStu
I distinctly get the impression that these people spend nights with their hands down the front of their jocks, squeezing their eyes ever so tightly and hoping that the day Bohs get DONE is not too far away. It's the giddy excitement and tone of their posts and the immediate nature of their questioning of all things related to Bohs off the field matters that really shines through.
The fact that everything they don't understand (which is quite I lot I might add) about the inner workings of our club has to be explained off with allegations of underhandedness and conspiracies only serves to underline their want for Bohemians failure.
You and LukeO have explained more than they deserve explained to them. Yet they choose to ignore what is fact and counter with conspiracy and conjecture. Leave them to it I say.
I got no lips I got no bones where there
were eyes there's only space
How long will it take whoever buys Dalymount to find land ,get planning,deal with objections and build a ground?How will Bohs finance their existance till then?Will NAMA just write off the money that the shoebox king gave Bohs?If you can answer these questions then you can lay claim to understanding the inner workings of your club but control of your own destiny I think not.
(1)As long as it takes (a matter for developer as Bohs not seeking to build). (2)The same way all other clubs will.(3) AGAIN Bohs are not in breach of contract so why would Danninger/NAMA be owed money ?, According to most on here Danninger will be the ones to breach contract, Are you really so stupid to believe they could claim money from Bohs for THEM breaching contract ?
There now, questions answered. Incidentally Assets V Liabilities, Bohs are far healthier finanacially than most clubs (including the much lauded Shams)
You will finance yourselves the same way all other clubs will? Now that's a lie. To date, you've been financing yourselves by drawing down from Liam Carroll (something I think you'll agree not all clubs are doing) and racking up a massive loan balance (so far in excess of other clubs that it doesn't even compare). Unless that's going to change radically (and the signings announced show no sign that it will), Bohs are not financing themselves the same way other clubs are.
That's irrelevant though. Cash is king, and you're far poorer than all other clubs in that regard. Dalymount only comes into the equation if you do something silly like sell your ground to pay wages.
It really does. And you forgot to mention the fans saying no-one outside the club really knows what's going on, and all our suppositions are wrong and the board know exactly what they're doing and there's a plan in place. Sounds exactly like Shels fans in 2006.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 06/01/2010 at 10:24 AM.
Interesting that you posted so frequently in the past concerning drawing a line under what other clubs did "in the past" but apply different criteria here (the use of "will" indicates going forward).
bohs do not make the rules regarding eligable expenditure simply have to (hopefully) work within them. We do not, for example, have a College supplying us with facilities/scholorships either - each club has pro's and con's but again you distinguish between Bohs "and other clubs" as if everyone else is the same. Strange.
To ignore a major asset in calculating the value of any business enterprise shows ignorance of any basic accounting procedures. Even without selling the asset is useful as leverage and in providing a guarantee for creditors (for example) - club less likely to disappear.
I indicated that I don't see how Bohs are going to show any major change between the recent past and the immediate future. If it's obvious that there is a major change, then your point is valid. But that's not the case here. As far as can be seen, Bohs intend to keep going the way they have been.
We don't have scholarships supplied to us; the club has to pay for them.
And LOL at you giving me (a qualified accountant) an accountancy lecture. It is not good practice use an asset vital to your existence to run up a debt of E4m. All having the ground means you're unlikely to go under, but it means you'll have to pay off all your debts when the time comes, by which stage you'll be homeless and have a much reduced budget in future. Just like Shels.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 06/01/2010 at 10:44 AM.
Is it usual that a major asset would be ignored (or classed irrelevant) in valuing a business entity ?
Various Bohs contributors here have indicated that the club has changed its approach to expenditure on wages going forward. sorry but will not put figures in such a public demain so you will just have to wait and see
What's business valuation got to do with anything? We're looking at viability. And in that case, yes, you should ignore anything that it would be downright stupid to sell. In fact, you should be looking more at your current ratio, which explicitly excludes fixed assets.
To be fair pineapple, all that article says is that the FAI havent even completed going through the accounts yet to come to their decision. It doesnt say anything more than that. People will take what they want out of it and they will - especially on this thread.
Last edited by CMcC; 06/01/2010 at 10:51 AM. Reason: I cant spell
LOL at you calling somebody's prediction for the future (however unlikely you think it is) a "lie".
Touché!
Your phrasing is better alright. Although the future's not a perfect unknown.
Agreed, and I'd share your concerns that visible signs don't seem to suggest much change.
The fact that the embargo hasn't been lifted after the recommendations to the licencing committee on Dec 22nd may not be as significant as som are making out - the normal procedure for acting on recommendations may still be taking place - under FAI governance we've become accustomed to things taking a long time to be decided and become public knowledge. In my opinion the link does not suggest irregularities of cause for concern as a reason for any delay, rather just gives procedure.
Bohs fans claim that by hard work they've scraped under the 65%, and to some that is a fanciful claim. But I don't think we can do anything except wait and see.
Yep, technically no club budgets have been agreed todate. Belief at Bohs is that we did comply with the 65% rule for 2009 and there has been no indication that this is not valid, if other people know different then I will be happy to stand corrected on presentation of facts (as opposed to speculation). I understand that the next week should see an acceptance or rejection of the recommendations (by the FAI) so we should FINALLY know one way or the other.
I think - to get back on topic - what it suggests is the following -
> Bohs were put under an embargo in May or June because of overspending as revealed in their monthly management accounts. Presumably it was a acse of the FAI saw the April accounts towards the end of May, saw they were over 65% and immediately slapped on an embargo.
> The embargo hasn't been lifted, which means that at no stage since have they come back under 65%
> Presumably the November accounts were what was submitted on 22 December. The only things in there which will really get Bohs under 65% are the prize money for winning the league and the E1m from the Albion deal. The FAI may, I suppose, also consider whether transfer fees agreed in November (Murphy for example, or was he a free?) but not recieved till Jan can count.
> Presumably again, if they are over the 65%, the FAI will keep the transfer embargo in place until they come back under the 65%, which could only be in March, having not signed any of the players they currently have agreements with. If they make it under 65%, all the players sign and off they go.
> Bohs may also cut costs next year, and fair play if they do, but it's not going to affect the 2009 figures.
To use your own vernacular, "thats a lie".
Do expand, genuinely.
If Bohs were over the 65% in October (as they seem to have been), what will bring them under the 65% in November?
Without knowing how much they were over the 65% SCP it is difficult to speculate as to what income needs to be generated in order to bring them under it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks