macbeth

it was blase, and I went out of my way to have the "acute" on the e mayeb blasay would have been better still

Absolutely didn't. I didn't know that the club had an income from "bums on seats" of 5.2m in 2009, putting you an par with Watford. Or that Bolton paid their players ?40m. Or that they made a collective loss of 40m over the last 9 years (while selling a football ground, and selling the naming rights to a training facility for a total of ~6m). I didn't know the club had reported debts of 72m in their accounts. I also didn't know that the club had players on their books collectively valued at 35m, or that the club spent a further 13.5m bringing in new players since June 2009. I also didn't know about Mr Davies. Obviously as a fan you would know all this cos you are closer to it then me. To me it was a shock, to those of you living with it all the time I can understand why you can be blas? particulalry after 9 years in the top division.

not as upstanding as they used to be, but they do what about you ?

I don't think you should question your directors while you are successful. Newcastle supporters never did, Leeds supporters never did, Portsmouth supporters never did. Why should I expect you to be any brighter than those people ? Be like them and wait until you're relegated. If I stated incorrect FACTS then I apologise, I chose soccerbase as a source, others chose Wiki, or what the club said. That none of these match up with what the club then reported in a legal financial statement is of course irrelevant. Love ya

It would turn you on probably. You assumed that I was the Lord Macbeth and it never crossed your mind I may be Lady Macbeth.

after the general way I've been made so welcome, you go and spoil it

Sadly I missed that one although our bridesmaid does actually give that course in London I really want peopel to question what their club's directors are doing, and not let them get away with high pay, low performance, "chasing the dream" management. Of all the clubs I've looked at there look to be two, maybe three, who are well run businesses. Al the others the directors seem to think the money will keep coming and they are honour bound to give it the players in higher and higher wages.

Sorry I missed your post in the sea of questions. I'll try, although it isn't an easy one .... Burnden Leisure, the parent company have debts of 64m as of last July. Burnden own the football club and the hotel. The net liabilities of Bolton Wanderers, so the club alone, sits at 72m. This comes from, on the positive side, the club having players on the books worth 25m, the ground etc being worth 41m, there being investments of 2m, other people owe them 12m, they own stock of 160k, and have ~900k in the bank. Total plus side comes to 82m. On the down side they have people who say they need paid in the next year of 85m, and people who want paid later than a year of 28m. So total downs of 113m. The difference is 31.3m, this is classed as the club's net liabilities. The vast majority of the amounts owed are owed to the parent company, Burnden, this figure is ~72m. If we look at Burnden's books they have assets made up of all the club ones, plus about 11m as the value of the hotel. When you look at how much Burnden owe people it comes to 77m for the next year, and a further 32m in the years after that, so a grand total of 108m Now Burnden have to borrow from somewhere. The books say that of the 108m, 39m is borrowed form the banks, and 23m from "others", whcih I'd guess is Davies. The interest payments are listed as being 4.4m mainly to "bank loans and overdraft". The loans from Davies are being charged interest at 10% and this is being added into the amount owed, it woudl seem that no actual transfer of casy is happening though. Often what happens is that the benefactor says the loan doesn't need repaid, and the interest side of it disappears. Hopefully that will be Davies view. Dunno whether this answers your questions, sorry if it doesn't.

i think we are agreeing with each other What I was trying to show was the amount the club were committing to buy in players. This is, as you say, the "acquisition" figure. The graph on the "assets" page shows the total value of the bought players, . This of course drops each year as the player contracts are amortised/depreciated, and falls as bought players are re-sold, and rises as new players are brought in. I think it shows that Big Sam played the Bosman's/frees wonderfully well and his successors have moved into buying expensive players instead.

all the numbers I have used have come from the club accounts. Apart from the Elmander fee which I changed when it was pointed out to me. No one has made an attempt at what the club actually paid for those players I listed. Soccerbase had ?27.7m, with Elmander at 10m, the club put in their books 35.1m as the total. Somewhere the soccerbase site is ?7m under what the club reported. Soccerbase had Cohen 650k, Steinsson 3.5m, Taylor 3.5m, Cahill 5m, Muamba 5 and Elmander 10. I'd love someone on here to try and bridge the gap between the two figures. Maybe Elmander really cost 17m ?! This summer, so since 30th June the club say they have paid out 13.5m to acquire new player registrations. Soccerbase has no figures quoted so I can't even guess. Has anyoen any idea how the 13.5m is split across Rickets, Knight and Lee ? Wiki quotes Ricketts as 2m, Knight as 4m, Lee as 2.2m. Where is the club money going? I was interested in knowing, but the "truth" you mention is already out there

most of the other tinpot clubs I have done for my tinpot site have some fans who are interested in how their clubs are being run. It is pretty clear that Bolton fans, or those on here anyway, already know far more about their club than other fans do. You are lucky in that respect. The financial downside of relegation for many fans is a big shock. At least you are all aware of the overspend, and understand what will happen. Hopefully you won't need to suffer it

My comment came in reply to someone seemingly being disbelieving that I wouldn't know who Mr Davies was.

Portsmouth fans agree too, or did.

I have used the "acquisitions" figure from note 11, intangible fixed assets. This is the amount the club have spent on new transfers. I completely accept that their are corresponding disposals, and profits made on sales. The "acquisitions" shows the amount the club have backed their manager in his choices for that year. The Liverpool figures, for example, show that in 2007 and 2008 Rafa spent ?70m each year on new players. Yes he sold to finance that but he brought into the club ?140m worth of new talent. What you have done is highlight that I missed a page off the site. I have a page like this Liverpool transfers which I have just missed off the Bolton one altogether. It is there now