Bohs in financial trouble - FAI Licencing called into question again?

[Macy]

Unions like to go legal

That wouldn't be my experience of Trade Unions in this country, whatever about Canada. They'll generally try and negotiate using procedures/ agreements and then resort to the Industrial Relations machinery. If nothing else, it's cheaper as there are no legal fees.

You have to factor what the players/ members are pushing for (even two of them), and that the PFAI is the "union" we're talking about.

[marinobohs]

My point is that this -

- is nonsense.

As to promises of when they'll get paid, I'll direct you to the concept of "pay day" for starters.

.... so there were no actual promises Stu ? Glad you accept you were wrong in that one . Now, it is agreed that the players sought a winding up order - so they sought to wind up the club. Simple fact, whatever way you look at it and the issue is not simply about pay owed as McGuinness confirmed they had rejected a settlement of 13 weeks (hence my point about buyout of future earnings). All quite simple and explained by more than silly claims of "nonsense"

At least we can agree on why they took the action of seeking a winding up order even if we disagree on the need for it.

[marinobohs]

That wouldn't be my experience of Trade Unions in this country, whatever about Canada. They'll generally try and negotiate using procedures/ agreements and then resort to the Industrial Relations machinery. If nothing else, it's cheaper as there are no legal fees.

You have to factor what the players/ members are pushing for (even two of them), and that the PFAI is the "union" we're talking about.

100% Correct Macy, Trade Unions in Ireland generally try and avoid going the legal route except as a last resort, primarily on cost grounds. Industrial Relations machinery (Labour Relations Commission, Labour Court, Employment Appeals Tribunal) are all free services and do not require legal representation (although it is optional). furthermore there are options under Labour Law (legislative entitlements as opposed to Industrial relations ( negotiation)) by which the issue could have been addressed without incurring legal costs. As the PFAI is affiliated to SIPTU the countrys biggest Trade Union they should/would be aware of the options open to them.

[hoopy]

The club has consistently said end January was its target date for agreement with all players (

I'm probably just confused with all the guff but was it not mid January that they had originally pencilled in?

[SkStu]

That wouldn't be my experience of Trade Unions in this country, whatever about Canada. They'll generally try and negotiate using procedures/ agreements and then resort to the Industrial Relations machinery. If nothing else, it's cheaper as there are no legal fees..

my experience in both jurisdictions is that they are usually quick off the step when it comes to resorting to legal procedures. I agree that they will generally try (or give the appearance of trying) to negotiate first. (not necessarily a description of the PFAI, more Unions in general).

Regarding the winding up order, i am relieved to learn that applying for a winding up order is a legal process of no consequence in Ireland. Goes against everything i learnt but things change i suppose...

[SkStu]

in the alternative, if they were not serious about winding BFC up then they have abused a legal process and wasted the courts time by clogging up the courts when they didnt want what they had applied for.

[marinobohs]

I'm probably just confused with all the guff but was it not mid January that they had originally pencilled in?

... it is beginning to get confusing Hoopy Think mid January was the date set by players/PFAI for resolution. I have always understood end January was clubs target date to allow maximum time to raise money and yet be in time for licencing deadline. Given the gap between the parties it was always likely to come down to the wire in terms of negotiation.

[micls]

Skstu, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse, which is unlike you. I get it, you're frustrated and upset and angry. We were there last year, We had a multitude of people trying to wind us up, although by the end we agreed with them.

These players didn't go to the court because they want to see Bohemian FC go out of business, just like the revenue didnt go to court last year because they wanted to see us out of business, or Gareth Farrelly, or all the others that threatened to wind us up.

All of the above went to court because they felt there was no other way to get their money, money they are legally entitled to. The threat of the company being wound up is the one most likely to make the people running the club sit up and take notice, and to realise this is their last chance. There isn't a hope in hell Bohs will be wound up over 8grand or something. You know that as well as I do, similarly there wasnt a hope we were going to be wound up over a relatively small tax bill in the Brian Lennox era. However the winding up order did ensure we actually got round to paying the money.

No one is really trying to wind up Bohs Fc, they're simply using the means available to guarantee themselves the cash. They know as well as us that people wont leave Bohs go under for the sake of a few grand and theyll get a better deal as a result.

[Mr A]

TV3 reported this morning that an agreement with the players is expected today.

[Dunny]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...s-2509012.html

Bohs survive as FAI step in to help broker deal with unpaid players



By Ruaidhri O'Connor

Tuesday January 25 2011



BOHEMIANS look to have staved off the prospect of being wound up in court and are expected to pay the outstanding wages owed to players Brian Shelley and Steven Gray today.
The Phibsborough club are believed to be on the cusp of reaching agreement with their contracted players after a weekend of intensive negotiations between the club, the PFAI and the FAI that look to have brought the 2008 and '09 champions back from the brink.
The Bohs board met last night to discuss the deal which would see the remaining contracted players accept a settlement in exchange for the termination of their contracts. The players have not been paid since November, but will receive their unpaid wages as part of the deal.
Gray and Shelley had forced the issue to this resolution by taking the club to court with a winding up order. The duo were due to be backed by their team-mates at a press conference in Abbotstown last week, but the intervention of FAI CEO John Delaney sparked a new round of negotiations that look to have resulted in agreement.
The association are believed to be financially involved in the settlement and, while it is as yet unclear how much of their 2011 wages the players will receive as part of the agreement, the majority of players have told the club they will accept the 13 weeks' pay severance agreement offered.
The Gypsies raised the cash needed to fund the redundancy package with loans from members and other investors, but the club insisted all along that, under the terms of the loans, the cash could only be released if an agreement could be put in place with all players.
- Ruaidhri O'Connor
Irish Independent

[orielabu]

Could somebody help to unconfuse me.
Let’s take this slowly.
First, the funds that Bohs had available to meet their lawful requirements with the players was unavailable for that purpose because these funds were provided by way of loans, a condition of which was that they were to be used only in the event of a settlement with all of the players.
Secondly, the FAI get involved but it is unclear in what capacity—Honest broker? IMF in disguise? Provider of funds by way of advances on future (?) prize money? If the latter, then what happens the funds (loans) referred to earlier.
Thirdly, if Bohs had the necessary funds (loans, guarantees, IOUs, or whatever you want to call them) why would the FAI become ‘financially involved in the settlement’.
Sounds like another three-card trick job—now you see it, now you don’t!
Can other clubs join this game?

[marinobohs]

Skstu, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse, which is unlike you. I get it, you're frustrated and upset and angry. We were there last year, We had a multitude of people trying to wind us up, although by the end we agreed with them.

These players didn't go to the court because they want to see Bohemian FC go out of business, just like the revenue didnt go to court last year because they wanted to see us out of business, or Gareth Farrelly, or all the others that threatened to wind us up.

All of the above went to court because they felt there was (1) no other way to get their money, money (2) they are legally entitled to. The threat of the company being wound up is the one most likely to make the people running the club sit up and take notice, and to realise this is their last chance. There isn't a hope in hell Bohs will be wound up (3) over 8grand or something. You know that as well as I do, similarly there wasnt a hope we were going to be wound up over a relatively small tax bill in the Brian Lennox era. However the winding up order did ensure we actually got round to paying the money.

No one is really trying to wind up Bohs Fc, they're simply using the means available to guarantee themselves the cash. They know as well as us that people wont leave Bohs go under for the sake of a few grand and theyll get a better deal as a result.

If only your analysis was accurate Micls

(1) players did not avail of other options open to them including truncating discussions with the club by imposing mid january deadline. Cork players did no such thing in their dispute and used other avenues to resolve the issue (including use of state dispute resolution machinery)

(2) issue is not about the outstanding wages but primarily about compensation for next season - that is why Mc Guinness claimed the two had turned down offer of 13 weeks pay in settlement. No such legal entitlement exists for next seasons money.

(3) issue is about approx 300K plus (figure required to settle with players) keep saying its "only 8 K" but it still is not accurate.

Fortunately it seems the issue has been finalised (and for a LOT more than 8 K). The fact is the players took the route to up the ante before heading off to Australia as that would deminish any claim they had in respect of next season.

[micls]

If only your analysis was accurate Micls

(1) players did not avail of other options open to them including truncating discussions with the club by imposing mid january deadline. Cork players did no such thing in their dispute and used other avenues to resolve the issue (including use of state dispute resolution machinery)

Our players may not have but others did. The players obviously felt this was the best option open to them....and it worked.

(2) issue is not about the outstanding wages but primarily about compensation for next season - that is why Mc Guinness claimed the two had turned down offer of 13 weeks pay in settlement. No such legal entitlement exists for next seasons money.

No, no it's not. Not may be the players issue in general but it was not the issue of the winding up order. You can not bring a winding up order based on money you will be owed next year. Only on money you are already owed. If Bohs had paid the money currently owed to the 2 players the winding up order would have went away.

(3) issue is about approx 300K plus (figure required to settle with players) keep saying its "only 8 K" but it still is not accurate.

(and for a LOT more than 8 K).

so how much was the winding up order for then? Not the total settlement with the players, which was not a matter for the courts...yet, just the winding up order that you are all complaining about?

[marinobohs]

Our players may not have but others did. The players obviously felt this was the best option open to them....and it worked. deal had to be done before end of January either way so court date was not especially relevent in my opinion (if we did not get a licence club would likely wind down

No, no it's not. Not may be the players issue in general but it was not the issue of the winding up order. You can not bring a winding up order based on money you will be owed next year. Only on money you are already owed. If Bohs had paid the money currently owed to the 2 players the winding up order would have went away. To suggest winding up order and contract negotiatons were not inextricably linked in bizarre (as confirmed by PFAI statement RE 13 wek offer). from clubs perspective it was/is get agreement with all or no point in getting agreement with any

(3) issue is about approx 300K plus (figure required to settle with players) keep saying its "only 8 K" but it still is not accurate.


so how much was the winding up order for then? Not the total settlement with the players, which was not a matter for the courts...yet, just the winding up order that you are all complaining about?

As explained there was no benifit for the club in reaching agreement with two players and not with all. Deal done (if concluded) will address all players concerned not just two seeking a quick payoff on a contract they have/had little intention of honouring

[pineapple stu]

Oh the irony of you accusing the Bohs players of having little intention of honouring the contract.

[marinobohs]

Oh the irony of you accusing the Bohs players of having little intention of honouring the contract.

I have posted here previously about Bohs culpibility in the whole affair and didnt see the need to repeat it but was simply pointing out that the players concerned had no more intention of honouring the "extensions".

incase you missed it though, yes, Bohs are primarily at fault for not honouring contracts to players - just not silly enough to believe the two players concerned are as innocent as some want to paint them (no doubt has nothing to do with the club involved eh Stu ?)

[John83]

I have posted here previously about Bohs culpibility in the whole affair and didnt see the need to repeat it but was simply pointing out that the players concerned had no more intention of honouring the "extensions".

incase you missed it though, yes, Bohs are primarily at fault for not honouring contracts to players - just not silly enough to believe the two players concerned are as innocent as some want to paint them (no doubt has nothing to do with the club involved eh Stu ?)

An early contender for the 2011 Pineapple Stu is Biased Against My Club Award.

[eamoss]

So if FAI are willing to help Bohs then why not Cork, Derry or Drogs?

If the FAI give Bohs a helping hand I think they should have their Europa League place taken off them and given to Pats but the FAI should take a cut of the 90k per round.

[marinobohs]

An early contender for the 2011 Pineapple Stu is Biased Against My Club Award.

.... an equally early contender for the "John 83" jumps to "Pineapple Stu" defence -again award 2011 ?

[marinobohs]

So if FAI are willing to help Bohs then why not Cork, Derry or Drogs?

If the FAI give Bohs a helping hand I think they should have their Europa League place taken off them and given to Pats but the FAI should take a cut of the 90k per round.

...... yes, because what the LOI REALLY needs is to make up more rules as we go along Not even sure what assistance the FAI are giving us but I presume (unless someone knows differently) that it is within the rules. And I think you may find Cork and Derry were benificieries of some FAI "help" in their respective difficulties.