mixup

Most Wanderers supporters could see that Bibi was not quite good enough as a left winger soon after he came to the club. Neither does he have the right blend of skills at this level in the Premiership to play in midfield. But when did he have a bad game at left back? When did Paul Robinson or JLS hold down a position in a top eight team at all let alone four years in a row? We have limitations in our squad. Why is Ricardo's ability being ignored? I am bemused.

Wilshere and Weiss are not without talent but winning with kids is fairly rare. The next few games are vital and we need to start with experienced pros even if some have there limitations. Ricardo Gardner has , for years when fit, been one of our better players from left back and that is where he is desparately needed. Gareth Bale wreaked havoc with our defence twice over the two games with Spurs but who can say that he is, overall, a better player in that position than Bibi? For heavens sake Owen give us a chance and let's see Bibi back where he belongs.

Ricky Gardner was magnificent in the first half against Spurs but he is more of a sprinter than a marathon man. You cannot expect anyone to play at that pace in midfield for 90 minutes. That's why he is better at left back where you get time to take a bit of a breather.

Sorry to keep beating on about it but Ricardo Gardner is the best left back we have had since Tony Dunne and he was the best we have had since Tommy Banks about 50 years ago. Just do it Owen!

Has everone forgotten that Ricardo Gardner lost his position at full back, not through lack of ability or form, but through injury. He was player of the year in 2005/06 when, with a squad that cost ?12million, we finished eighth, conceding 41 goals over the whole season. This season, with a squad that has cost ?54million (take a close look at the audited accounts) we have conceded 38 in 19 games. I hope Owen Coyle quickly recognises, as Sam Allardyce did, that Ricardo offers much more to the team defensively and offensively from the left back position.

I have seen this car parked at the Fleece at Dolphinhome. Wondered who owned it.

Well done Macbeth. Some excellent analysis in your report. One thing worth remembering is that values are variable and uncertain but costs have to be paid. The clubs total debt is a lot more than the net debt most commentators have focussed on. It is also worth noting that the club's staff costs went up from ?31 million in 2007 to ?41 million in 2009 whilst the capital cost of players contracts increased from ?24 million to ?54 million (the latter including signings in the summer of 2009). Gary Megson could claim that he helped the club maintain Premiership status but any claim that he left the club in an improved financial position is not borne out by the worrying numbers.

Breightmet Boy's post has the ring of truth about it. ED has pushed the boat out with GM who can, in turn, claim that he achieved the main objective of keeping us in the Premiership. However, too many supporters (including those who thought that GM had been given an unfairly hostile reception) have been alienated and the unprecedented investment in players and player contracts has not built confidence nor has it shown signs of improving the quality of entertainment on offer. Two games into the season is too early to draw conclusions but whilst most of us were looking for signs of improvement it is hard to see much other than the continuance of the drab grind that we have witnessed for some time.

The six players quoted are the main ones. There will be a few others of lesser amounts. The figures include agents fees and these can amount to a lot even where the transfer fee is not very much. The biggest fee was Johan Elmander over which estimates have varied including speculation as to whether the amounts payable were in Euros or GBP. I don't know the answer. Despite a profit of ?8.5 million on player transfers last year the Club lost ?8.1 million. To put it another way the expenditure was ?16.6 million more than normal income. These figures are peanuts to many Premiership clubs and their owners but Bolton Wanderers are not in that position. I expect that the lower numbers of playing staff and backroom staff over the last year are connected to the need to get the finances in better shape.

You are right in saying that the net cash outflow on players in the two years is just over ?8 million but the point I was making is that the audited accounts demonstrate a liability to pay ?24.5 million more than this. This is in addition to the net debt of ?53.5 million and not part of it and according to the accounts was due to be paid during the current financial year. Of course the investment in players is represented by assets which have a value and, of course, values may go up or down. Nicolas Anelka's value thankfully went up by quite a bit, but investment in players, though necessary, is a risky business. The business as a whole also has a value and the Board can be in no doubt that this is largely dependent on maintaining Premiership status. Over the last two years the Board have pushed the boat out further than many have realised and the need to recruit more playing staff at the end of this season is obvious. When much of the competion has deeper pockets supporters need to be realistic in their expectations.

With respect it seems unreasonable to say that the figures are incorrect without explaining which figures and why. I have no personal information but rely entirely on the figures in the Annual Reports and audited accounts. Note 11 in the 2007 audited accounts shows that the club spent ?14,373,000 on player acquisitions in that year, the lions share being Nicolas Anelka. Note 11 in the 2008 accounts shows a figure of ?35,114,000 on acquisitions in that year.(Andy O'Brien, Gary Cahill, Matt Taylor, Gretar Steinsson, Johan Elmander and Fabrice Muamba). That adds up to ?49.5 million in two years. The cash flow statement (note 25) shows payments on purchase of players of ?12,606,000 in 2007 and ?12,380,000 in 2008. That adds up to payments over the two financial years of ?25 million and therefore leaves ?24.5 million outstanding. The outstanding amounts appear to be included in Accruals in Note 16 (Creditors: amounts falling due within one year) which increased from ?14,005,000 in 2007 to ?38,880,000 in 2008. The cash flow statement also shows that sale of players brought in ?1,843,000 in 2007 and ?14,867,000 in 2008. As the sales of Nicolas Anelka and Abdoulaiye Faye are reported to have been for ?14 million and ?2 million respectively most of this money was clearly received before 30 June 2008. Note 17 shows details of the borrowings totalling ?51,720,000 which are the main components of the net debt of ?53.5 million. It does not include accruals, deferred income, trade creditors or tax and social security creditors.

It's an interesting question but did you mean why bother reading the accounts or why bother commenting. The club's debt or to be more precise the 'net debt' has been referred to on a number of occasions with contributors having only a limited understanding of what it means. Over the last two financial years the Club spent ?49.5 million on new players but paid only ?25 miillion. The rest has to be found and is additional to the ?53.5 million referred to as debt. Most, if not all, of the money from the sale of Nicholas Anelka had already been received by the date of the last balance sheet.

If it is any help, I have a copy of the audited accounts to 30 June 2008 in front of me. At that date Burnden Leisure had ?72.7 million pounds of liabilities falling due within one year and ?32.6 million falling due after more than one year. About half of this is (?51.7 million) is interest-bearing borrowings. The amounts due for payment within one year include ?38.9 million of accruals (up from ?14.0 million in the previous year). This is not explained but is most likely to mainly comprise deferred obligations on player transfers, agents fees and the like. Liabilities also include ?6.5 million of deferred income. i.e Monies received prior to the year end but which relate to future periods. In the accounting year the club spent ?35.1 million on player acquisitions taking on increased debt to fund the difference between purchases and sales of players.

I remember that match even if it was one of those that I preferred to forget. The crowd was about four times the average for that season boosted by returning Wanderers supporters hoping that 'good would again triumph over evil' and red hordes who had little idea of why they were so disliked. Some good obviously came of it as it confirmed MK as a true white. One of my abiding memories is going to Old Trafford with a pal in 1957 when Man U were celebrating the opening of their floodlights. There was a full house and as we were both small (only twelve years old each) we could see nothing unless Man U supporters let us through to near the front. Try as we did none of them would make way. It is the only time I have been to a match and never seen the pitch. Even so the Wanderers spoiled their celebrations and ran out 2-0 winners. I was also a Lever Ender from the start and recall the smell of pipe tobacco, winter green and crown ale and nip strong served from the bar beneath the wing stand at the Manchester Road side. My first away match was at Blackpool in 1954 and I find it hard to believe that I was allowed to go. A small group of us in the summer holidays had decided to try to form a football team and raise money to buy the strip. The older lads, who were about twelve at the time, decided after a little while that the idea was not going to work but there was enough money for us all to go to Blackpool to watch the Wanderers. That's what we did. The 3-2 victory, courtesy of goals from Nat Lofthouse and Harry Webster, were something of a consolation for the defeat in the previous year's cup final.

Thanks MG for highlighting this report. It was something I remember but was not surprised by at the time as I also recall the strong dislike in Bolton of Man U before the Cup Final and before the Munich air crash earlier that year.In the book 'Wartime Wanderers' it is reported that 'Back in 1939 not all the clubs in the country had lent their support to the Football Association's recommendation to promote the army recruitment drive. Manchester United's directors had been in total disagreement with the notion'. I suspect it was the particular role played by Harry Goslin and his subsequent death in service of his country that added to the feeling in Bolton that Man Utd were a club that would always put self-interest before any principle.