With the very greatest of respect

 

Kiss my starfish

 

Ambition not a big part of your armour?

 

I've got ambition, I want to support Bolton till the day I die ... not just until they go under

I've got ambition, I want to support Bolton till the day I die ... not just until they go under

 

Support them doing what? Playing the reserves?

Support them doing what? Playing the reserves?

 

If we ever go bust, you will not even have reserves to watch

If we ever go bust, you will not even have reserves to watch

 

BWFC will always exist in one form or another

 

The same bunch of headtheballs, notbeenwells and notrights will still be there watching. Regardless.

Staff costs are ?39m 2008 but were ?30m 2007

 

Take the non football staff to be ?20K pa, that leaves ?35m on players and manager

 

Fcukin lot imo but a lot of it may be Sammy Lee's signings, we don't know, or we may be underestimating how much lads like Jussi and Gardner earn. I suppose Anelka was probably costing ?4m a year

my analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we are fcuked

This alone should be proof enough that a football club cannot be compared to any other business model

 

Not really, I work in IT, the vast majority of our outgoings are on staff. We write software, there's no raw materials, it's a fairly simple business model that's becoming more and more common in this country.

Not really, I work in IT, the vast majority of our outgoings are on staff. We write software, there's no raw materials, it's a fairly simple business model that's becoming more and more common in this country.

 

Fair point BUT

 

I would imagine you have to show a fairly reasonable profit most of the time. Football clubs seem immune to this.

Fair point BUT

 

I would imagine you have to show a fairly reasonable profit most of the time. Football clubs seem immune to this.

 

Depends on whether or not the investors are looking to take money out of the club on an annual basis or grow the club as a longer term investment.

 

Up until the Credit Crunch the model as been trying to build a successful business based on borrowing (in order to finance transfers and the players wages) - so that someone will buy the club (including the debt) for a nett profit some years later.

 

For instance you take two identical clubs. One lives within its means and as no debt - the other borrows heavily - buys galacticos - and probably shoots up the league - but becomes heavily in debt.

 

The thinking is that someone will pay far more for the debt ridden big 'successful' club than the prudent lower league non debt laden club.

 

Trouble is when a club goes into large debt and is not successful - see Leeds United.

Edited January 7, 200917 yr by Sluffy

from memory....

Players signed in that financial year

 

Taylor,Steinsson,Cahill ?13 million

Elmander ?8.2 million

Muamba ?5 million

 

Total ?26.2 million

 

PLayers sold in that financial year

 

Anelka ?15 million

Faye ?2 million

 

Total ?17 million

 

transfer deficit ?9.2 million

 

The Diouf sale and Shittu purchase came after the year ended as did the ?1 million from Norris (i think)

 

So on those figures all the operating loss is due to investing in the team.To maintain a Premier League football club that needed to be done.

 

The operating loss is only 200k more than the Elmander fee.....lets hope Elmo scores the goals to keep us up to justify the fee.

 

 

 

Gartside conffirms in the annual report that we got ?14m for Anelka.

Much too complicated for me I'm afraid.

 

But if you are being serious then just think of business financing similar to that of your own household budgeting - you have income (your wage) and expenditure some of which you pay for all the time (fixed) like your rent or mortgage, and some of which you pay now and then (variable) like going to the movies perhaps.

 

You might want to buy things that you could not afford to get from your savings (like a car for instance) so you borrow the money and promise to pay it back over say three years. You therefore owe money to someone (Creditors) with the money having to be paid at an agreed time in the future.

 

As long as your money coming in can cover your money going out at the right time (cash flow) you don't have a problem but if you forget to budget for a big bill and don't have the money to pay it when it is due the your wife my have to step in (Administration) and sort your affairs out because the people you owe money too want paying.

 

You may have to sell your car to help you out but it would not be worth as much as when you first bought it (Depreciation).

 

Hope that is of some help?

 

Sort of, but would you include buying pornography as a variable cost?

 

Also, can you tell me and the readers what depreciation is. Presume its similar to appreciation, but in the sense that over a period of time you enjoy it more.

Bigtoe, I'll give you ?2 for the 10 bananas.

 

Got to be worth a punt and better value than re-buyind Diouf.

Sort of, but would you include buying pornography as a variable cost?

 

Also, can you tell me and the readers what depreciation is. Presume its similar to appreciation, but in the sense that over a period of time you enjoy it more.

 

Yes, pornography would be a variable cost, as I guess some would need to purchace it a grate deal more than others.

 

Depreciation is the loss in value over time - bit like the direction this thread is heading.

 

I'd also sell your bananas to Traf - I think it may be your best offer tonight.

I can't get me head round all this financial stuff, so instead I'm just going to get ćunted at Arsenal and then hope for the best

I can't get me head round all this financial stuff, so instead I'm just going to get ćunted at Arsenal and then hope for the best

Indeed. & If tha's owt left for a kebab by the end of the night then you've done a good bit of money management in my world!

Indeed. & If tha's owt left for a kebab by the end of the night then you've done a good bit of money management in my world!

nooo, no kebabs on saturday, I'll splodge me Ian Greaves tshirt.

Mind you, on top of the ale, sick and piss it'll have on by the time I get to th'East Midlands I suspect kebab meat would be the least of its worries.

Seriously though, what I know about finance and economics could safely be written on a budgie's bollocks. No wonder I'm fućking skint

Got my set at home last night - as Horwich has said - we are basically fcuked. There is not alot of good news at all in there but one area of concern is greater than others.

 

If I could be arsed going to the AGM my question would be along the lines of:

 

Over the last two years the turnover of our club has been at all time record highs, mainly due to the TV revenue received. During this same two year period our Net Debt has increased from ?30.1M to ?53.5M (?23.4M or 78%).

Can the Directors please tell me how are we ever to reduce the debt and how can the club hope to survive if / when our time in The Premiership comes to an end.

Over the last two years the turnover of our club has been at all time record highs, mainly due to the TV revenue received. During this same two year period our Net Debt has increased from ?30.1M to ?53.5M (?23.4M or 78%).

Can the Directors please tell me how are we ever to reduce the debt and how can the club hope to survive if / when our time in The Premiership comes to an end.

 

well let's face it, it is "when" and not "if" - the "when" might be some time off, but even so...

Got my set at home last night - as Horwich has said - we are basically fcuked. There is not alot of good news at all in there but one area of concern is greater than others.

 

If I could be arsed going to the AGM my question would be along the lines of:

 

Over the last two years the turnover of our club has been at all time record highs, mainly due to the TV revenue received. During this same two year period our Net Debt has increased from ?30.1M to ?53.5M (?23.4M or 78%).

Can the Directors please tell me how are we ever to reduce the debt and how can the club hope to survive if / when our time in The Premiership comes to an end.

 

my guess at a response...

 

our debt is financed by our income, so whilst we are in the premier league this is manageable. if we were to drop out of the premiership we would need to reduce our debt to reflect the reduced income, we would also reduce our expenditure.

 

to reduce the expenditure we have clauses in every memebr of staffs contracts (players and management) that reduces their salaries if we drop down a division.

 

we would also need to sell some of our assests (players) to reduce the debt.

 

to reduce the debt at the moment would mean reducing spend on players and/or wages, if we did this we would reduce the qulaity of our squad which would increase the likelihood of us dropping out of the prenmierhsip and the scenario above would be more likely.

 

even in the current economic climate our funders are happy with our borrowing and how we service the debt so although on paper it looks a large sum it is at a level we are comfortablee with and given our funders are also happy with the arrangements it is not affecting our abuility to compete in the premiership although we can not match the money available to some other clubs.

 

we are mindful of the size of the debt and we will continue to run the business in a prudent fashion and will not risk the long term future of the club by over committing in the transfer market or players salaries.

my guess at a response...

 

our debt is financed by our income, so whilst we are in the premier league this is manageable. if we were to drop out of the premiership we would need to reduce our debt to reflect the reduced income, we would also reduce our expenditure.

 

to reduce the expenditure we have clauses in every memebr of staffs contracts (players and management) that reduces their salaries if we drop down a division.

 

we would also need to sell some of our assests (players) to reduce the debt.

 

to reduce the debt at the moment would mean reducing spend on players and/or wages, if we did this we would reduce the qulaity of our squad which would increase the likelihood of us dropping out of the prenmierhsip and the scenario above would be more likely.

 

even in the current economic climate our funders are happy with our borrowing and how we service the debt so although on paper it looks a large sum it is at a level we are comfortablee with and given our funders are also happy with the arrangements it is not affecting our abuility to compete in the premiership although we can not match the money available to some other clubs.

 

we are mindful of the size of the debt and we will continue to run the business in a prudent fashion and will not risk the long term future of the club by over committing in the transfer market or players salaries.

 

Are you Phil Gartside?

 

My follow up question would be:

under the days of BSA, the debt was being slowly reduced and stablised at around ?30M. In the last two years the mountain of debt has been allowed to increase by 78% despite a significant increase in turnover. Is this really a prudent fashion to run a Company?

 

It really comes down to Companies that are the holding company for sports club not operating in the same financial world as the rest of us. If we had a 78% increase in debt, a negative worth on the balance sheet and a constant year-on-year threat that our turnover could collapse if we lost our position in the market we currently operate in, I think our Auditors would be very nervous about signing off the accounts on a going concern basis.

I do agree with Ani though, the level of turnover and backing of Eddie is acceptable as security but its a bloody lot of debt!

Question:

 

Does the way the club is being run really matter?

 

Leeds, a few seasons ago, were riding high in the Premier League. Their accounts department got it seriously wrong, aided and abbetted, no doubt by some dodgy direction from the board of directors.

 

We all know this as it was big news as it happened.

 

Result: Leeds fans still go to watch their team, albeit in a lower division but undoubtedly with fewer fashion-fans. I have a mate who's an LUFC Season Ticket holder and he reckons to be enjoying his football more now than at any time inthe past 15 years.

Are you Phil Gartside?

 

My follow up question would be:

under the days of BSA, the debt was being slowly reduced and stablised at around ?30M. In the last two years the mountain of debt has been allowed to increase by 78% despite a significant increase in turnover. Is this really a prudent fashion to run a Company?

 

It really comes down to Companies that are the holding company for sports club not operating in the same financial world as the rest of us. If we had a 78% increase in debt, a negative worth on the balance sheet and a constant year-on-year threat that our turnover could collapse if we lost our position in the market we currently operate in, I think our Auditors would be very nervous about signing off the accounts on a going concern basis.

I do agree with Ani though, the level of turnover and backing of Eddie is acceptable as security but its a bloody lot of debt!

 

 

personally i think the level of debt of clubs is immoral ! (me and mr platinni) especially when clubs go under, they are back in business in weeks under a new name but nothing paid to the small creditiors, I know st johns ambulance has been owed money by a number of clubs in the past.

 

the fact is that the biggest risk for clubs is going out of the premiership, so an increase in debt to make this less likely to happen is seen as acceptable.

 

Here is a true story, a few years ago when i was working in finance we did a corporate deal with this guy it was no big thing but i spent a lot of time visiting football clubs when going round he was telling me about this business model whereby clubs would borrow against future earnings and the value of their players. it all made sense but was nt for us.

 

then along came bosman rulings and the value of these deals disapeared because at the end of a contract a player has no value to the club, so you sign someone for ?10m then 3 years later is worth nothing, all assest depreciate but this is very quick and you are also proable paying ?2m per year (wages) to maintain the asset, so it is ?16m over 3 years for soemthing which has no value at the end.

 

clubs therefore did not seem interested in these schemes, the notable exception was Leeds. Now given what has happened there it would seem that clubs got it right, however it now seems everyone is going down the same path and it can only be time before more clubs go the same way as Leeds. There are i think 4 ex premier teams below championship level, leics, leeds, mkdons and bradford all have flirted with or gone through administration.

 

8 out of the bottom 10 in championship ex premier league.

 

if we do go down i think people are complaining about the club now will relaise what 'golden days' we are currently lucky enough to be experiencing !

Edited January 8, 200917 yr by Ani

Question:

 

Does the way the club is being run really matter?

 

Leeds, a few seasons ago, were riding high in the Premier League. Their accounts department got it seriously wrong, aided and abbetted, no doubt by some dodgy direction from the board of directors.

 

We all know this as it was big news as it happened.

 

Result: Leeds fans still go to watch their team, albeit in a lower division but undoubtedly with fewer fashion-fans. I have a mate who's an LUFC Season Ticket holder and he reckons to be enjoying his football more now than at any time inthe past 15 years.

 

It matters a great deal to those who've invested in the club and those affected if and when the club cannot pay its creditors.

 

Some of those who lost money through Leeds going bust included many local suppliers including the St Johns Ambulance.

 

The hard core fans may not be too bothered - but an awful lot of other people would get hurt.

Question:

 

Does the way the club is being run really matter?

 

Leeds, a few seasons ago, were riding high in the Premier League. Their accounts department got it seriously wrong, aided and abbetted, no doubt by some dodgy direction from the board of directors.

 

We all know this as it was big news as it happened.

 

Result: Leeds fans still go to watch their team, albeit in a lower division but undoubtedly with fewer fashion-fans. I have a mate who's an LUFC Season Ticket holder and he reckons to be enjoying his football more now than at any time inthe past 15 years.

Interesting question that one. Thing is, though, in their case they do know that sooner or later they will get back up. Also, if we think back to our experiences in the lower leagues, we never actually stagnated once we hit rock bottom - we started that gradual climb. Plus all those years were interspersed with Wembley trips. So we can look back on that time with some degree of fondness I suppose, at least with hindsight. BUT there's no guarantee that next time we plummet it will be like that. Nor could have the expectation of a return that Leeds fans can. And Derby's current plight and Leicester's, Forest's and Wednesday's (and City's for that matter) experiences tell you that once you drop one division, you can easily end up down another one. If if then, unlike before, we end up stagnating and spending the next 10 years rummaging round in the old 3rd division, with no sign of progress and no Wembley trips to get the numbers back out every so often, then that wont be much fun...

From the Teletext. Story here

 

From The Bolton News. Story Here

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Added BN story.

Edited January 9, 200917 yr by Traf
Removed the stories. Folk can click the links if they want to read them.