Bohs SCP discussion

**CharlesThompson** · 08/01/2010, 3:17 PM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

The "no win" scenario arises due to your incapacity to look at anything to do with Bohs with any sense of objectivity (as has been seen on a number of threads). If they are found guilty then it is OK but if they are found innocent then they are guilty anyway. What utter rubbish, but in keeping with your views on all things Bohs.
There is some excuse for fans showing bias in favour of their own club (we are all guilty) but your constant harping about Bohs is borderline scary.

I think it's more a case of if we are found guilty then "GREAT!!! Zippity Do Da, Zippity Day!!!!!" If we are found to have met the criteria for staying within the 65% rule then it's more "****, F@CK THEM!!!! The FAI are in on it with them!!!!Bah Humbug, etc. etc."

This is a no win situation for sure. In the eyes of some of the more obsessed here, Bohs are damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. That is why the obsessed are better off to debate our internal business between themselves.

**Mr A** · 08/01/2010, 3:51 PM

On the no-win thing: This isn't just blind anti-Bohs sentiment as is being made out. The FAI are notoriously flaky at applying their own rules so it's perfectly reasonable to question whether they have the stomach to actually apply the 65% rule properly.

**CSFShels** · 08/01/2010, 3:57 PM

Jesus Christ, Rovers fans are becoming even more irritating than Bohs fans, and thats saying something.

**John83** · 08/01/2010, 6:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

On the no-win thing: This isn't just blind anti-Bohs sentiment as is being made out. The FAI are notoriously flaky at applying their own rules so it's perfectly reasonable to question whether they have the stomach to actually apply the 65% rule properly.

There's that, and there's also the fact that Bohs are the last of the big clubs spending beyond their means (granted, if they can sell Dalyier, they may get out of it yet) - Rovers, Shels, Pats, Cork and Derry have all either sorted themselves out or are teetering on the edge. There's been so much financial crap over the last few years that people are sick of it, and of the FAI fiddling (in the Nero-while-Rome-burns sense as much as anything) and fudging around the topic. What I'm getting at is that it's not all about Bohs. Any club where they are now would be getting this flack.

**Dalymountrower** · 11/01/2010, 7:34 AM

Daniel O Donnell in todays indo quoting that Fenlon staying with Bohs,

Daily Mail quoting un-named FAI sources that Bohs within the 65%SCP for 2009.

Sill rumours and completely at variance with BCWTD`S Bohs Almanac and Pineapple Stu`s Crystal Ball Accounting system, so the journalists must be wrong?

**marinobohs** · 11/01/2010, 1:29 PM

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

To be fair, I couldn't have predicted Bohs paying Fenlon on the sly the full amount owed, closing the loophole, but the salient point was I correctly called get out clause in the first place.

As for the SCP and associated embargo, all I merely said last year when you were predicting its lifting to hold your horses, it would be in place at least one more month. And I was 100% right.

I still expect some more twists in the tale, whether it be a rejection of your initial budget today and a possible sanction, but so far I have been bang on.

Sorry, but there never was a get out clause and the legal advice Nutsey took confirmed this. The issue of outstanding bonus payments was raised and Bohs (unlike certain other clubs we pay 100% of what we owe) dealt with the matter. there is no doubt that it was hoped it would go some way to help compensate for Nutsey not getting the DU job but was never an acknowledgement that any clause existed.
But if it makes you feel better ...............

The issue of SCP and embargo was never going to be addressed before today (Bohs and Cork were due to be first up ,this since changed following a request from other clubs.) as each club is required to get agreement on budget for 2010. As far as I know the FAI have not ratified any recent transfer deals pending budget sign off.

**marinobohs** · 11/01/2010, 1:44 PM

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So Bohs, by sheer fluke, happened to pay Nutsy all outstanding money in the middle of these negotiations? What an uncanny coincidence.....

But last year your fans were adament it was to be lifted in December. My point was that it wouldn't be looked at till late Jan, and I still believe that there is a sting in the tail of those accounts.

My understanding is that you were due to submit your budget today, but asked for a postponement until next week. I wonder will it take 4 drafts again this year for the FAI to accept it?

postponement was asked for last week due to "PAT FENLON GONE TO DUNDEE UTD - DONE DEAL" ring any bells ? Nutsey is part of the club negotiating team at these talks and given the uncertainty over his future the club sought a postponement.
Anything else is alwaysultra fantasy

**marinobohs** · 11/01/2010, 1:47 PM

[QUOTE=BYCTWD;1304211]So Bohs, by sheer fluke, happened to pay Nutsy all outstanding money in the middle of these negotiations? What an uncanny coincidence.....

Issue was raised and issue was addressed. I'm sure MON can expect 4% of what he is owed when he eventually gets a decent job

**marinobohs** · 11/01/2010, 1:56 PM

Originally Posted by John83

There's that, and there's also the fact that Bohs are the last of the big clubs spending beyond their means (granted, if they can sell Dalyier, they may get out of it yet) - Rovers, Shels, Pats, Cork and Derry have all either sorted themselves out or are teetering on the edge. There's been so much financial crap over the last few years that people are sick of it, and of the FAI fiddling (in the Nero-while-Rome-burns sense as much as anything) and fudging around the topic. What I'm getting at is that it's not all about Bohs. Any club where they are now would be getting this flack.

To be fair many Bohs posters here have said all season that if we are in breach of the 65% rule we expect to be punished. Not sure what more we can say.
It is stretching creadibility to say that if Bohs are guilty - it proves they are guilty but if they are innocent (within 65%) it proves the FAI are covering up for them.
This FAI / X files conspiracy garbage is of course nothing to do with Bohs success in recent seasons.
As was shown with Derry City I expect the FAI to clamp down on any wrongdoing at Bohs.
By the way the idea of Bohs getting any "special treatment" from the FAI would get a wry laugh at Dalymount.

**marinobohs** · 11/01/2010, 1:59 PM

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Was it? Please elaborate, I'm intrigued.

But this sort of shambles will never happen at Rovers as all our staff are fully paid, on time and there is no ambiguity over the contract status of anyone at the club.

Only ambiguity at Bohs appears to be with yourself. Still, the point has now been dealt with (done to death to be honest) so lets move on

**Hairy Bowsie** · 11/01/2010, 2:13 PM

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

But this sort of shambles will never happen at Rovers as all our staff are fully paid, on time and there is no ambiguity over the contract status of anyone at the club.

Please don't make out like all is rosey in the garden at Shams either though.

**Acornvilla** · 11/01/2010, 2:23 PM

Originally Posted by Hairy Bowsie

Please don't make out like all is rosey in the garden at Shams either though.

i got an image of hundreds of hoodies smoking in a field of flowers when i read that

**wexfordned** · 11/01/2010, 2:28 PM

Originally Posted by Hairy Bowsie

Please don't make out like all is rosey in the garden at Shams either though.

How dare you criticise the best run club in Ireland.

Not only are they doing everything right, they are examining every other club's finances with a fine tooth comb as they are aware no one can compare to the high moral standards they set.

In fact Shamrock should be put in charge of licencing as they seem to know more about Boh's accounts than anybody in the FAI or any Boh's fan.

**SkStu** · 11/01/2010, 2:30 PM

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So Bohs, by sheer fluke, happened to pay Nutsy all outstanding money in the middle of these negotiations? What an uncanny coincidence.....

But last year your fans were adament it was to be lifted in December. My point was that it wouldn't be looked at till late Jan, and I still believe that there is a sting in the tail of those accounts.

My understanding is that you were due to submit your budget today, but asked for a postponement until next week. I wonder will it take 4 drafts again this year for the FAI to accept it?

well im sure all your fantastic insider knowledge that you and the rest of the squealing pigs on here were boasting about last week will let you know the answer to that and everything else Bohemian you pack of effin chancers. LOL

You'd want to have words with your sources by the way, whoever they are.

**SkStu** · 11/01/2010, 2:33 PM

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

I have no idea who 'Shams' are, but Rovers finances are in great shape and we will odds on be the only incumbant PL side going into the new season stronger on the pitch.

what have Sligo got to do with this?

**Dave_SRFC** · 11/01/2010, 8:49 PM

http://www.herald.ie/sport/soccer/fe...g-2008544.html

This can't be right can it?

"Bohs make a case for inclusion of prize money as income for their budget on the basis that they won the league for the past two seasons and, realistically, only see one club (Shamrock Rovers) as challengers for next season"

**Acornvilla** · 11/01/2010, 8:55 PM

well i guess the are almost guranteed 2nd spot but still very dodgey.....

**Schumi** · 11/01/2010, 9:02 PM

Some good news for Fenlon though

Dundee United have said from the start of negotiations that they would not take on Fenlon through the 'back door'

**John83** · 11/01/2010, 9:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dave_SRFC

http://www.herald.ie/sport/soccer/fe...g-2008544.html

This can't be right can it?

"Bohs make a case for inclusion of prize money as income for their budget on the basis that they won the league for the past two seasons and, realistically, only see one club (Shamrock Rovers) as challengers for next season"

Their reasoning seems to imply they're asking to include prize money for winning the league in their budget, or at least for second place. It wouldn't be unreasonable to include some prize money in their position, but the FAI's track record on passing budgets has been spotty - on one hand, they seem to have called it right at Sligo last year, but on the other, Cork.

**Dalymountrower** · 11/01/2010, 9:39 PM

Originally Posted by John83

Their reasoning seems to imply they're asking to include prize money for winning the league in their budget, or at least for second place. It wouldn't be unreasonable to include some prize money in their position, but the FAI's track record on passing budgets has been spotty - on one hand, they seem to have called it right at Sligo last year, but on the other, Cork.

As all teams share in at least some of the prize money available it shouldn`t be beyond the FAI to establish a formula on an average of .say, five seasons final placings and to allow the inclusion of the resulting amount to be included in the budgets. It would then be a matter for each club to decide on whether to include a figure up to that amount in their budget.If any club maxes out on the figure and breaches the 65% then its relegation or points deduction for the following season.
It would be interesting to see how many clubs have included in prospective prize money in the submitted budgets