Bohs in financial trouble

**Dodge** · 17/02/2011, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Probably won't happen, but if it did, I think Shels are next in line, yeah?

Monaghan, when galway get theirs back

Didn't realise that the loans fans gave to club were for the 2011 budget too marino. Thanks for clarifying that particular piece of lunacy

**marinobohs** · 17/02/2011, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Monaghan, when galway get theirs back

Didn't realise that the loans fans gave to club were for the 2011 budget too marino. Thanks for clarifying that particular piece of lunacy

Cheers Dodge, as for clarifying - this is Bohs

so nothing is really clear. Though it was a strange provision (money to sit in seperate account etc) but apparently was a term of the loan deal (and not by bohs).

**SkStu** · 17/02/2011, 2:23 PM

it was stated pretty clearly on the terms of the loan if anyone here had bothered to check.

Dodge - your Bohs mate told you that? Its been on the same thread on the Bohs mb that you post in for two days. Please.

Everyone else, its a crying shame that the players still havent been paid what they are owed but quite how it is totally Bohs' fault is unclear to me. The infomation in the article seems quite transparent and clear. McGuinness has said the players are fuming but nowhere have i seen him cry foul or say this is Bohs fault or that the players were mislead. As we all know he is not afraid to bash us in the press when necessary. No need for the outbusts here in my opinion.

**Dodge** · 17/02/2011, 2:32 PM

Originally Posted by SkStu

Dodge - your Bohs mate told you that? Its been on the same thread on the Bohs mb that you post in for two days. Please

Is it? its a massive thread and I only went on your forum last night for first time in a while. Not like I was sharing inside info or anything. Saying that a bohs fans told me is the same as 'its on their forum'.

**SkStu** · 17/02/2011, 2:34 PM

"their" forum? hmmm.

Oh well, no big deal.

**Charlie Darwin** · 17/02/2011, 2:40 PM

Everyone else, its a crying shame that the players still havent been paid what they are owed but quite how it is totally Bohs' fault is unclear to me.

Well it appears that Bohs entered into contracts that they were not entitled to make - or at least not entitled to exercise the terms of - until they'd received an exemption from the revenue. So that would make it totally Bohs' fault.

**SkStu** · 17/02/2011, 2:45 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Well it appears that Bohs entered into contracts that they were not entitled to make - or at least not entitled to exercise the terms of - until they'd received an exemption from the revenue. So that would make it totally Bohs' fault.

im sorry CD. You will have to explain that to me. What contract? If it is the settlement you are talking about, i am sure that this would have been disclosed as part of the loan agreement and in negotiations with PFAI. As McGuinness has not cried foul does that not suggest that they knew this was a condition of the settlement and therefore the delay is attributable elsewhere.

And what has the revenue got to do with this? Have you read the article? Did you mean the Department of T,C & S?

**Charlie Darwin** · 17/02/2011, 3:21 PM

I did mean the Department, yeah.

I'm going by this article from the Indo so this is all based on the accuracy of that report.

Bohs have secured their future with a series of loans from members and supporters using Dalymount as security.
The sports grant received by Bohs is also secured on Dalymount, presumably guarding against the possibility the club could go under.
At the moment, the government has the prime charge on the ground, however the terms of the new loan(s) is that the loanees be given primacy.

It is incumbent on nobody exception Bohemians to ensure that the government department waives its first charge on the ground, no?

**HulaHoop** · 17/02/2011, 3:37 PM

This latest twist completely justisfies the actions of Shelley and Higgins in making sure they got their money. I'd say the rest of the players now regret not adding their names to the winding up petition.

**SkStu** · 17/02/2011, 3:54 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

It is incumbent on nobody exception Bohemians to ensure that the government department waives its first charge on the ground, no?

Again, im not really sure if you are aware of the contents of the article.

The Department has indicated that it is in agreement to release the charge as requested. The delay in paying the players is due to not having recieved the letter from the Department yet, a legal requirement in order for the funds to be released to the club.

There is nothing to suggest any of this is a surprise to the PFAI or McGuinness.

**Longfordian** · 17/02/2011, 4:10 PM

The main question I'd have about the arrangement is why Zurich would agree to a charge being created which would rank ahead of theirs? I presume they have a fixed charge on Dalymount anyway?

**Dodge** · 17/02/2011, 4:16 PM

Originally Posted by SkStu

The Department has indicated that it is in agreement to release the charge as requested. The delay in paying the players is due to not having recieved the letter from the Department yet, a legal requirement in order for the funds to be released to the club

You sure thats all it is? If they've orally committed to something, knocking up a letter isn't too big an issue. If it still has to go through a couple of stages within that Department, then thats another issue altogether. If the club haev no idea when they'll receive the letter we could another month or so and neither back pay, nor nomal wages will be paid?

**Charlie Darwin** · 17/02/2011, 4:39 PM

Originally Posted by SkStu

Again, im not really sure if you are aware of the contents of the article.

The Department has indicated that it is in agreement to release the charge as requested. The delay in paying the players is due to not having recieved the letter from the Department yet, a legal requirement in order for the funds to be released to the club.

There is nothing to suggest any of this is a surprise to the PFAI or McGuinness.

Right, but it's the club's responsibility to obtain the letter in a timely manner. You can't just throw up your hands and say "bureaucracy!"

**HulaHoop** · 17/02/2011, 4:40 PM

What I don't get is why Bohs have not got this approval from the Department before now. Surely they would have needed the Department to release the charge before they signed the Danninger deal to sell Dalyer five years ago. Wouldn't they also have needed it to sell the shopping centre end to Albion or whatever deal they did with Albion only last year? I find it amazing and not very believable that this charge the Department of Sport has over Dalymount didn't come up once during the numerous property deals Bohs have been involved in over the last 5 years yet suddenly when it comes down to paying players with loans secured on the future sale of Dalymount it becomes a big issue.

**Longfordian** · 17/02/2011, 4:46 PM

They wouldn't have needed it until all the legalities were being finalised as regards the sale but they must have needed it for their Zurich loan unless Zurich were happy to take second charge which seems unlikely.

**SkStu** · 17/02/2011, 6:08 PM

Zurich dont have a charge on the entire site by the way.

Just as the Department doesnt have a charge on the entire site.

**Mr A** · 17/02/2011, 6:14 PM

So I'm guessing the department have a charge on the Jodi, Zurich on the car park and Albion on the shopping centre end or something like that?

**Jicked** · 17/02/2011, 6:35 PM

Do Bohemian FC have a PRO?

**SkStu** · 17/02/2011, 6:39 PM

i think we need to organise "A Night With... Bohemians"

we can charge you all in and you can ask all your questions and boo and throw rotten tomatoes at the club and stuff. e5 a head reasonable? Should cover our wages through 2013.

**Magicme** · 17/02/2011, 7:05 PM

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.

But I thought it was an independent committee and not an internal department?