Bohs in financial trouble

**dong** · 13/08/2010, 12:11 PM

Sure I suppose in the worst case scenario, if they can't pay their way they can always regroup in the first division a la Cork and Derry anyways.
Seemed to work out okay for both of them. All you have to do if you're a fan is close your eyes and believe its still the same club.

**Jicked** · 13/08/2010, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by dong

Sure I suppose in the worst case scenario, if they can't pay their way they can always regroup in the first division a la Cork and Derry anyways.
Seemed to work out okay for both of them. All you have to do if you're a fan is close your eyes and believe its still the same club.

But the difference with Cork was the fans had no previous control. Bohs fans have been in control and have stood over all this that has happened. How many board members have they been through at this stage from their ranks. If there's only 1,400 regular fans, would they really have enough qualified and capable members left after a purge to run the club on a sound basis?

It does now seem (going by GypoWeb at least) that most Bohs fans have given up the idea of just winning the league/setanta/euro progress to get by and are now in survival mode as dodge said. That's to be commended, but perhaps if they did that last year and regrouped ala Pats instead of getting Johnny Logan to try keep the show on the road for one more crack at it, they might be in a better state.

**pineapple stu** · 13/08/2010, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by dong

Sure I suppose in the worst case scenario, if they can't pay their way they can always regroup in the first division a la Cork and Derry anyways.

Cork and Derry didn't own their grounds. So there is a difference there in that a First Division Bohs either sell Dalymount to cover their debts and end up homeless, ot they stay in Dalymount, run out of cash to meet loan repayments and get wound up. They'd be actually even worse off than Shels, who at least have sold their ground and, it seems, paid off many of their debts. They're now mid-table in their fourth year in the graveyard and going backwards (in terms of finishing positions anyway - second place, just 30 seconds away from the title, second place, losing the title two games out and beaten in the play-off semi, and now 5th)

**peadar1987** · 13/08/2010, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Jicked

But the difference with Cork was the fans had no previous control. Bohs fans have been in control and have stood over all this that has happened. How many board members have they been through at this stage from their ranks. If there's only 1,400 regular fans, would they really have enough qualified and capable members left after a purge to run the club on a sound basis?

It does now seem (going by GypoWeb at least) that most Bohs fans have given up the idea of just winning the league/setanta/euro progress to get by and are now in survival mode as dodge said. That's to be commended, but perhaps if they did that last year and regrouped ala Pats instead of getting Johnny Logan to try keep the show on the road for one more crack at it, they might be in a better state.

They (and every other club) need a qualified, full time off-the-field management team. It'd be of more benefit to the club than paying an extra bench-warming striker and journeyman full back in the long run.

**Mr A** · 13/08/2010, 12:45 PM

So if Bohs are well under the 65% rule, what is it that they are spending the money on?

**Macy** · 13/08/2010, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

So if Bohs are well under the 65% rule, what is it that they are spending the money on?

Barmen and groundsmen?

**dong** · 13/08/2010, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by peadar1987

They (and every other club) need a qualified, full time off-the-field management team. It'd be of more benefit to the club than paying an extra bench-warming striker and journeyman full back in the long run.

Blinkhorn and Boco??
Ouch.
I take your point though Peadar.

**pineapple stu** · 13/08/2010, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

So if Bohs are well under the 65% rule, what is it that they are spending the money on?

You saw my post above about buying back and re-selling the same part of their ground?

**marinobohs** · 13/08/2010, 1:09 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You saw my post above about buying back and re-selling the same part of their ground?

care to prove that or are you just WUMMING ?

**pineapple stu** · 13/08/2010, 1:11 PM

There was a thread on here about it a while back. I'll have a look see if I can dig it up.

Edit - here we go. schumi straight after gives a good possible summation. I'm not saying that it's what happened, but it'd certainly allow for Bohs to be under the SCP but yet screwed for cash.

**Schumi** · 13/08/2010, 1:29 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

There was a thread on here about it a while back. I'll have a look see if I can dig it up.

http://foot.ie/threads/130064-Bohs-S...=1#post1298468

**peadar1987** · 13/08/2010, 1:31 PM

Originally Posted by dong

Blinkhorn and Boco??
Ouch.
I take your point though Peadar.

I wasn't talking about any player or club in particular, but now you mention it...

And on the clubs circumventing the 65% rule, wasn't there some post on here a while back saying that, say, Bohs could buy a carpet from Des Kelly for 10 million quid, and then Des Kelly sponsor them for, say 10,100,000 (I don't know how much the sponsorship deal is actually worth!). No more money has actually changed hands, but Bohs have an extra 10 million income to play with when the 65% is being calculated*

*I'm not making any accusations here, just saying how the cap could be beaten

**pineapple stu** · 13/08/2010, 1:33 PM

There's a similar thing to that shortly after in the same thread above, where the possibility of Bohs renting DCU for their underage team for - say - E100k and receiving E90k back in sponsorship for the teams was mooted. That'd also help boost the SCP level while not helping cash.

**marinobohs** · 13/08/2010, 1:33 PM

Originally Posted by Schumi

http://foot.ie/threads/130064-Bohs-S...=1#post1298468

selling an OPTION to purchase same as selling "the same part of the ground" ? Know where not to look for an accountant

**Schumi** · 13/08/2010, 1:34 PM

Originally Posted by peadar1987

And on the clubs circumventing the 65% rule, wasn't there some post on here a while back saying that, say, Bohs could buy a carpet from Des Kelly for 10 million quid, and then Des Kelly sponsor them for, say 10,100,000 (I don't know how much the sponsorship deal is actually worth!). No more money has actually changed hands, but Bohs have an extra 10 million income to play with when the 65% is being calculated*

*I'm not making any accusations here, just saying how the cap could be beaten

See the link just above. I don't think it was ever clarified whether that would work but I can't be bothered reading through a 23 page thread to check!

**pineapple stu** · 13/08/2010, 1:36 PM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

selling an OPTION to purchase same as selling "the same part of the ground" ? Know where not to look for an accountant

That's just a technicality. The deal perfectly answers the question of how Bohs could meet the SCP while being screwed for cash. That was the question asked. I've not said that it's what's happened.

**Dodge** · 13/08/2010, 1:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

So if Bohs are well under the 65% rule, what is it that they are spending the money on?

back payments to revenue? Loan repayments? I'd imagine there are a fair few large outgoings possible

**passerrby** · 13/08/2010, 1:40 PM

Originally Posted by Jicked

It does now seem (going by GypoWeb at least) that most Bohs fans have given up the idea of just winning the league/setanta/euro progress to get by and are now in survival mode as dodge said. That's to be commended, but perhaps if they did that last year and regrouped ala Pats instead of getting Johnny Logan to try keep the show on the road for one more crack at it, they might be in a better state.

whats another year .i ll get my coat

**marinobohs** · 13/08/2010, 1:41 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

That's just a technicality. The deal perfectly answers the question of how Bohs could meet the SCP while being screwed for cash. That was the question asked. I've not said that it's what's happened.

As we are not in breach of the SCP the issue has no relevance (apart from regurgitated claims by various shams and assosiates). long way from just a technical difference but no point as its irrelevant to the topic.