Bohs in financial trouble

**pineapple stu** · 17/02/2011, 9:38 AM

Originally Posted by Nedser

Because refusing to do so would mean Bohs go to the wall, and the taxpayers would stand to benefit by just a few cents each?

Why should the taxpayer be hit for so much when ye've a lovely big asset ye keep telling us about (and keep selling)?

Edit - and in fact, the scheme as proposed by Bohs would lessen the Government's chance of getting paid in full because they'd be pushed down in terms of priority.

**Longfordian** · 17/02/2011, 9:40 AM

It's impossible to have things done quickly with them, but it should be done in the end. Have Zurich no charge on the ground?

Originally Posted by Mr A

Very worrying for Bohs, as this could take a while. Anybody involved in the Harps Stadium project could tell you about how long the simplest things can take when dealing with Irish bureaucracy. Hopefully it gets sorted quick so the players can get what they are owed.

I wonder are the new signings registered yet? If not it would seem mad to register them while the slightest doubt remains over these loans.

**Ezeikial** · 17/02/2011, 9:43 AM

Originally Posted by Nedser

Because refusing to do so would mean Bohs go to the wall, and the taxpayers would stand to benefit by just a few cents each?

That is a logical and sensible reason.

But if this is so, it is because the organisers of the loan scheme made this "first charge issue" it a requirement of the loan scheme. Surely the loan scheme did not require this as an essential element?

If they did, agreement from the Govt should have been secured in the first place (maybe it was?)

It appears to be yet another round of Russian Roulette from a compulsive gambler

**Nedser** · 17/02/2011, 9:48 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Why should the taxpayer be hit for so much when ye've a lovely big asset ye keep telling us about (and keep selling)?

Surely the taxpayer got "hit" when the grants were paid? I don't know the ins and outs of this, but I assume the charge is there simply to ensure the sports capital grants are repaid if the stadium is demolished within a set period of time. I don't know how much the grants were, but clearly not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things. I also very much doubt if Bohs have raised a massive amount through these loans, so in all likelihood, if and when Dalyer is sold (again!), it would raise enough money to repay both the supporters and the grants.

However, in the unlikely event that doesn't happen, and the taxpayers get nothing, it would make sod all difference to the country's coffers. Just to reiterate that the govt never expected to get this money back, as it was given away in grants!

**Nedser** · 17/02/2011, 9:52 AM

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

But if this is so, it is because the organisers of the loan scheme made this "first charge issue" it a requirement of the loan scheme. Surely the loan scheme did not require this as an essential element?

Of course it was an essential element!! Do you honestly think people were going to lend Bohs money without it being secured on a tangible asset?

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

If they did, agreement from the Govt should have been secured in the first place (maybe it was?)

The article that has prompted this latest hoo-ha says it was "The club have been told to expect a letter that will lift that charge by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport".

**pineapple stu** · 17/02/2011, 9:54 AM

The only alternative to Dalyer being sold is that ye raise enough money to pay off the loan. That's not going to happen. Dalymount will be sold one way or the other. By putting these loans ahead of the Government grants, though, you're increasing the possibility that there won't be enough money left to pay back the grant from the proceeds, and so increasing the chance that the taxpayer will get nothing. The amount of charges against it at the moment - Zurich, grants, loans - the rapidly depreciating property market and the access issue mean we must be getting close to the stage where the ultimate proceeds from the sale won't actually cover everything secured against it.

And if the Government want the money back, it's more than likely because ye mis-spent it (like on wages) and so they do now expect to get it back.

**gufct** · 17/02/2011, 10:06 AM

There are very valid reasons why Galway will get their Licence back tomorrow .Im not going to air them here but the internal depts. in the FAI dont seem to be cross checking facts before they make their decisions.

**JC_GUFC** · 17/02/2011, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Nedser

The article that has prompted this latest hoo-ha says it was "The club have been told to expect a letter that will lift that charge by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport".

I think Mary Hanafin has bigger issues to worry about at the moment than licking the stamp for that envelope... now if she was in Dublin North West it might be a different matter...

**Nedser** · 17/02/2011, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The only alternative to Dalyer being sold is that ye raise enough money to pay off the loan. That's not going to happen. Dalymount will be sold one way or the other.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Bohs actually openly said this in their appeal for loans.

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

By putting these loans ahead of the Government grants, though, you're increasing the possibility that there won't be enough money left to pay back the grant from the proceeds, and so increasing the chance that the taxpayer will get nothing.

You don't seem to get the point here - the taxpayer/govt never planned to recoup this money. The Capital Sports Grants guidelines say "The Deed, which registers a legal charge over the grant-aided facility, is your guarantee to us that the facility will be used for the purpose you have stated in your application. If the facility ceases to be used for this purpose, we can demand that you repay the sports capital grant". Bohs have clearly used the facility for the purpose stated. Also, as I already said, this is a miniscule amount of money. I'm willing to be it's a lot less than the revenue wrote off for rovers - but that was revenue the govt expected and was entitled to.

**marinobohs** · 17/02/2011, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by gufct

There are very valid reasons why Galway will get their Licence back tomorrow .Im not going to air them here but the internal depts. in the FAI dont seem to be cross checking facts before they make their decisions.

Genuinely hope this proves true GUFCT as (unlike some on here) I dont wish to see any club in trouble. Appreciate you probobly cant expand on reasons but glad to see you are optimistic !
As I posted earlier I think (based on what I read here) that there is enough scope for the FAI to give Galway a prem licence (Revenue clarification etc) but also enough grounds to refuse one (timelines). On the basis of what we know on here I think it very much depends on the intention of the FAI (today would be a good day to order some Aviva tickets

).

**JC_GUFC** · 17/02/2011, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Nedser

"The Deed, which registers a legal charge over the grant-aided facility, is your guarantee to us that the facility will be used for the purpose you have stated in your application. If the facility ceases to be used for this purpose, we can demand that you repay the sports capital grant". Bohs have clearly used the facility for the purpose stated.

I'm confused - are they not actually looking for money to pay players as the wage bill was way OTT? This is a genuine question - not being a wum.

**Dodge** · 17/02/2011, 10:14 AM

Bohs mate told me that an 'investor' had loaned the club 100k which he stipulated had to go to playing budget. Seems bizarre. Any bohs fans able to confirm/deny?

**pineapple stu** · 17/02/2011, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Nedser

"If the facility ceases to be used for this purpose, we can demand that you repay the sports capital grant". Bohs have clearly used the facility for the purpose stated.

I'm confused here - why is there a charge for the grant so?

Originally Posted by Indo

However, the final step in completing the paperwork with regard to those loans has been delayed by the government as they have a charge on the stadium through the issuing of sports capital grants.

Surely if the money was used for the correct purpose, there should be no charge? And similarily, if there is a charge, then Bohs clearly haven't used the facility for the purpose stated?

**Dodge** · 17/02/2011, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I'm confused here - why is there a charge for the grant so?

Surely if the money was used for the correct purpose, there should be no charge? And similarily, if there is a charge, then Bohs clearly haven't used the facility for the purpose stated?

The grant agreement probably states that grant money must be used for sporting reasons for a period of time (say ten years). If Bohs sell ground within those ten years, then they must repay the sports grant.

Just speculating on timelines etc but makes sense to me

**marinobohs** · 17/02/2011, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Bohs mate told me that an 'investor' had loaned the club 100k which he stipulated had to go to playing budget. Seems bizarre. Any bohs fans able to confirm/deny?

Dodge, without breaching too many confidences, all the money raised (including one 100 K) by the loan scheme is boxed off in a seperate account outside the clutches of our nefarious board. Tthe money is earmarked to (a) pay off the exiting players contracts and (b) assure funds are in place to pay players for 2011 (Nutsey referred to this in Mondays press conference without expanding on it).

If true it would mean money is guaranteed for players contracts in 2011 and would be a major step forward for the club in avoiding a repetition of the recent debacle.
I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread but too much to trawl through

.

**Buile Shuibhne** · 17/02/2011, 10:29 AM

The players signed off an agreement to accept delayed payment this week - in order to allow Bohs meet the licence requirements.

Were the players told that Govt / Dept of Sport had 'a charge on the stadium' which had to be released before the monies due to them could be released?

At worst - fraud by Bohs
At best - sharp practice.

The Independent Licencing people should revoke Bohs licence

**Mr A** · 17/02/2011, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Buile Shuibhne

The players signed off an agreement to accept delayed payment this week - in order to allow Bohs meet the licence requirements.

Were the players told that Govt / Dept of Sport had 'a charge on the stadium' which had to be released before the monies due to them could be released?

At worst - fraud by Bohs
At best - sharp practice.

The Independent Licencing people should revoke Bohs licence

Hard to argue with much of that in fairness. The FAI removed Derry City's (Wellvan version) for submitting false information didn't they?

**Guinney** · 17/02/2011, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Nesta99

Imo as Dundalk have more players signed than last year then it is logical that there has been some increase in playing budget, closer to 8k possibly.

That�s not entirely true. At the end of last season Dundalk had 21 players in the 1st team squad (4 on amateur terms and Hatswell was a player coach), this year -not including Shaun Maher - we have 18 signed (one on amateur terms (Osbourne) and another on loan (Hector from Reading)). But as a squad this year I think we are stronger, plus with Kierans replacing Hatswell we will have a full time assistant manager alongside Foster.

PS. Sorry for going off topic.

**marinobohs** · 17/02/2011, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Buile Shuibhne

The players signed off an agreement to accept delayed payment this week - in order to allow Bohs meet the licence requirements.

Were the players told that Govt / Dept of Sport had 'a charge on the stadium' which had to be released before the monies due to them could be released?

At worst - fraud by Bohs
At best - sharp practice.

The Independent Licencing people should revoke Bohs licence

Without knowing the content of the actual agreement between Bohs and the players (was payment date specified) it is difficult to know if terms breached - it is possible it was just a statement claiming all outstanding monies had been agreed upon (genuinely dont know) in which case no agreement breached.
I would further imagine Licencing people will only act if players contact them but as we do know this could jepordise any payment to them (given terms of Bohs loan agreement) and unless they do a "lanagans ball" (Bohs stepped out Galway back in) i doubt that they (FAI) will be looking to boot out any more teams.