shame you didnt back BSA Gartside

 

I would have said that giving Sam the money to buy the Elk was backing him, to me that should have been the start of a new era under Sam, when he would have had money to spend but if would have been over a number of years, but I think Sam wanted it all at once and lost sight of the big picture, but thats only me take on it

i don't want to lose money i invest

 

often happens though

 

if we get relegated, davies will lose his money

 

are you saying at that point he becomes a benefactor?

 

casino says - bollocks

Yep & the only truth we know, is that we don't know.

I would have said that giving Sam the money to buy the Elk was backing him, to me that should have been the start of a new era under Sam, when he would have had money to spend but if would have been over a number of years, but I think Sam wanted it all at once and lost sight of the big picture, but thats only me take on it

Good point, although the fat man wanted more in the January window when Bolton were third, and in the end just scraped Europe. Now was that due to the disinterest Sam showed post new year, or did we genuinely need the money spending then?

 

I would say events this past January and now suggest the board think they should have spent in January 2007.

 

In any case, who cares, good to see big spending going on, and let's all be thankful it wasn;t Sammy Lee that had the (relatively) open chequbook to play with!

Good point, although the fat man wanted more in the January window when Bolton were third, and in the end just scraped Europe. Now was that due to the disinterest Sam showed post new year, or did we genuinely need the money spending then?

 

I would say events this past January and now suggest the board think they should have spent in January 2007.

 

In any case, who cares, good to see big spending going on, and let's all be thankful it wasn;t Sammy Lee that had the (relatively) open chequbook to play with!

 

theres no evidence to support that

 

the money wasn't as available, was it?

theres no evidence to support that

 

the money wasn't as available, was it?

Don't know

ahh, but we do

 

we've just had our first lump of the increased sky tellybox money, haven't we?

Does it really matter what was / wasnt available in 2007, or are we just trying whatever means to put a negative spin on our record signing?

ahh, but we do

 

we've just had our first lump of the increased sky tellybox money, haven't we?

 

good business imo, only spendig money you have.

 

rather than spending in anticipation of recieving,

 

 

which is what leeds did........................

You made a good point that it is difficult to bankroll the club and not lose money.

 

It is one or the other in normal circumstances.

 

Telling you to get on your bike and go watching Chelsea is easier than arguing the point with you.

Are you serious george?

I don't get on WWays as much as I used to do, but last time I was here I'm sure you were one of the sensible posters. You are not one of the NegativeWays cronies now, are you?

 

If you really want me to argue the point I will, but it is so obvious that it didn't seem to me that I needed to.

Making the point that "it is difficult to bankroll the club and not lose money" backs up my point that we should be grateful for what Eddie Davies has done for the club. A top businessmen like him would know that putting his money into a football club at that stage, with that amount of debt was bad business. There would have been hundreds of different business opportunities and investments that his advisers would have steered him to before that hair-brained idea. Many benefactors of football clubs have made this decision because of what is in their heart not their head.

IMO There is a good chance that the club wouldn't even be in the Prem but for Davies's money. We would be where we deserve to be, in the next division down. I say deserve to be because of our ungrateful 'supporters.

 

And as for giving abuse to the NegativeWays lot, I don't regret that for one second. They need to give their head a good shake

Go and talk to fans from the next 100 teams down from us. Tell them about all the results we have had in the last 15 years, tell them how many Wembley appearances we have had, tell them about all the giant killing acts we have had and how much we can now afford to pay players wages because of how well the Club has been managed financially over a steady length of time.

Then tell them you are a critic, and see if they think you are an ungrateful b@stard or not.

last season was evidence of what is to come, without money BSA got us into Europe? I expect Megson to get us there now he's had over ?25 million since he joined.

Do you say that you "expect Megson to get us to Europe" because you rate him highly as a manager? Do you think it is an easy task qualifying for Europe when you look at our competition in the league(Pompey, Everton, West Ham, Newcastle etc.), most of whom have bigger banky balances and better fans.

 

YW On the subject of Bolton supporters, would you class yourself as a Prem standard supporter? maybe Championship standard?? If the club had to judge you the way that you judge them, where do you think they would place you?

I don't think anyone is qualified to say whether Davies has bankrolled the club except those ITK (BWFC accountants, board etc).

 

The general view at the time was that Davies picked up the club for a song albeit with debts equalling a year's worth of revenue.

 

Since then, it would make interesting reading to add up all the revenue, net transfers, salaries and other expenses then see how much he's pumped into the club.

Are you serious george?

I don't get on WWays as much as I used to do, but last time I was here I'm sure you were one of the sensible posters. You are not one of the NegativeWays cronies now, are you?

 

If you really want me to argue the point I will, but it is so obvious that it didn't seem to me that I needed to.

Making the point that "it is difficult to bankroll the club and not lose money" backs up my point that we should be grateful for what Eddie Davies has done for the club. A top businessmen like him would know that putting his money into a football club at that stage, with that amount of debt was bad business. There would have been hundreds of different business opportunities and investments that his advisers would have steered him to before that hair-brained idea. Many benefactors of football clubs have made this decision because of what is in their heart not their head.

IMO There is a good chance that the club wouldn't even be in the Prem but for Davies's money. We would be where we deserve to be, in the next division down. I say deserve to be because of our ungrateful 'supporters.

 

And as for giving abuse to the NegativeWays lot, I don't regret that for one second. They need to give their head a good shake

Go and talk to fans from the next 100 teams down from us. Tell them about all the results we have had in the last 15 years, tell them how many Wembley appearances we have had, tell them about all the giant killing acts we have had and how much we can now afford to pay players wages because of how well the Club has been managed financially over a steady length of time.

Then tell them you are a critic, and see if they think you are an ungrateful b@stard or not.

 

My definitions of negative (and positive):

 

1) Playing not to lose a game against Fulham at home, a team with the worst away record of the established premier league clubs.

 

2) Sheffield United at home in the FA Cup, no more to be said on that.

 

3) Lisbon, which upset the players as much as the fans.

 

I pay my money to watch the strongest possible team go out to win every match whatever the competition. If that means getting relegated sometimes then so be it.

 

Trying to stay in the premier league at all costs is negative. We've been relegated before and come back.

 

At the end of the 85/86 season I bet my brother a weeks wages (?50) that we would be back in the top flight within 10 years. The season after we got relegated to the 4th division but I still won my bet, now that is positive.

 

All the above with no abuse (which is sometimes due to some posts!) because I am entitled to an opinion which is that I don't trust anything that Gartside says.

I don't think anyone is qualified to say whether Davies has bankrolled the club except those ITK (BWFC accountants, board etc).

 

The general view at the time was that Davies picked up the club for a song albeit with debts equalling a year's worth of revenue.

 

Since then, it would make interesting reading to add up all the revenue, net transfers, salaries and other expenses then see how much he's pumped into the club.

Bullshit.

 

Davies has put around ?30 million of his own money in, and that doesn't include any funding he's may have supplied for the latest round of transfers.

 

Gartside is bob on with his comments. Others fans might be grateful. The moaning pricks that follow Bolton do nothing but criticise.

Bullshit.

 

Davies has put around ?30 million of his own money in, and that doesn't include any funding he's may have supplied for the latest round of transfers.

 

Gartside is bob on with his comments. Others fans might be grateful. The moaning pricks that follow Bolton do nothing but criticise.

 

 

well said that man

 

also remember that eddie davis has also paid for the 3 million new academy next to the old BAE site and prob paid for all the backroom staff and equipment that BSA bought in (which must of been a few million)

well said that man

 

also remember that eddie davis has also paid for the 3 million new academy next to the old BAE site and prob paid for all the backroom staff and equipment that BSA bought in (which must of been a few million)

 

What would you rather have, a local made good like Eddie Davies who puts what he can into the club or some US investors who mortgage it up to the hilt with a stack of debt?

 

There aren't any many Eddie Davies's around there may be a few of the second category who could potentially bankrupt the club. Thank goodness we have him.

Bullshit.

 

Davies has put around ?30 million of his own money in, and that doesn't include any funding he's may have supplied for the latest round of transfers.

 

Gartside is bob on with his comments. Others fans might be grateful. The moaning pricks that follow Bolton do nothing but criticise.

 

 

What's bullshit about my statement, I had not reached any conclusion? How do you know how much money Davies has put in?

I got bored after the 4th or 5th post.

 

Anyway

 

Has anyone said that he has (in the process of bankrolling, spending, whatever you girls are arguing bout) aquired about 95% of a premier league football club in the meantime?

 

What's bullshit about my statement, I had not reached any conclusion? How do you know how much money Davies has put in?

It's a matter of public record if you can be arsed looking. Davies has made injections of ?6 million and ?14 million and the money for Anelka came from his pocket. Then there's ?3.5 million (iirc) for the academy naming rights.

a 4 year old article which i reckon is interesting

 

if hed wanted he couldve got the whole shebang for a couple of million before we were de-listed

 

at least thats how i read it

 

http://www.footballeconomy.com/archive/arc...2004_jan_03.htm

 

however hes got ownership and whether he's a cahrity case or a hard nosed businessman, i don't see how anybody can argue he hasn't been good for the club

 

there'll be folk who bought at 70p (i know theres one or two on here) but by the time Davies 'mopped up the business' they were worth more as bog roll anyway

It's a matter of public record if you can be arsed looking. Davies has made injections of ?6 million and ?14 million and the money for Anelka came from his pocket. Then there's ?3.5 million (iirc) for the academy naming rights.

 

i'm sure its worth waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than that to him

 

what a great deal for the fella

 

now then, wheres that tongue in cheek smiley

there'll be folk who bought at 70p (i know theres one or two on here) but by the time Davies 'mopped up the business' they were worth more as bog roll anyway

It still amazes me to this day, that folk thought it would be a good idea to invest in an operation like Bolton Wanderers. At the time they floated, my father considered it, his financial adviser said he should just cut out the middle man and flush his money down the loo.

 

I know of somebody who invested ?5000 at the time, he was minted (and clearly daft), and was still upset when he didn't make a return on the investment................

I got bored after the 4th or 5th post.

 

Anyway

 

Has anyone said that he has (in the process of bankrolling, spending, whatever you girls are arguing bout) aquired about 95% of a premier league football club in the meantime?

 

 

For about a fiver and a bag of footballs? No, I don't think it came up. Revenue at the time was about 35m and the debt was about the same, but everyone got carried away by the size of the debt because the previous wasters couldn't securitise it properly. Like borrowing the ground on a credit card. No-one questioned that he inherited the ground, land and transfer value of the players.

 

What was needed was a decent businessman to securitise the debt of the ground on a long-term basis (cheap interest rates plenty abound), ensure the wages never exceeded two-thirds of the revenue, didn't have a massive net transfer outlay, and stay in the Premier League.

 

Davies/Gartside could control the first three but the crucial aspect was staying in the Premier. It was more good fortune FSA somehow managed to achieve this so it's him we have to thank for our present status regardless of what you and I may think of him as a person.

 

Now revenue is 60m+, it's good business sense to outlay some of the 30m bunce Sky gave us to keep in the Premier League cos if we went down, it'll drop to half that.

whatever happened to mosaic

 

did that 'entity' end when the reverse takeover thing happened?

 

looking back, 10 million quid

 

10 years on we're buying one player for that

I don't think anyone is qualified to say whether Davies has bankrolled the club except those ITK (BWFC accountants, board etc).

 

The general view at the time was that Davies picked up the club for a song albeit with debts equalling a year's worth of revenue.

 

Since then, it would make interesting reading to add up all the revenue, net transfers, salaries and other expenses then see how much he's pumped into the club.

 

Are you having a laugh? Where the fcuk do you think the money came from for Anelka, Muamba, Elmander, Cahill, steinsson, Taylor etc. Lets face it we were on our arse when he came. Weve not got a ragging money tree

whatever happened to mosaic

 

did that 'entity' end when the reverse takeover thing happened?

 

looking back, 10 million quid

 

10 years on we're buying one player for that

 

though here it says 22 million

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...03/ai_n14116762