newquay central Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Gudjohnson has been approached by the wanderers bout a return to the white men, according to reports on goal.com. Hope these reports are true would love to see him back playing his football at the reebok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Special One Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 that will never happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 according to reports on goal.com must be happening then.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man_Walking_Dog Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 must be happening then.............. is a done deal according to fairytail.com and the starkie gazzette. well done megson and gartside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonk Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 must be happening then.............. The reports referred to on goal.com were from Tribal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 The reports referred to on goal.com were from Tribal So it's a chinese whisper* of a chinese whisper* then. *Nowt against the chinese like as every chinese person I've spoken to has always spoke aloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaststandlower Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 no never happening, get over Gudjohnson he aint coming back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravellingWanderer Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 He has said before he would love to come back to Bolton one day, but I doubt we would pay the wages the likes of West Ham and Spurs would pay him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) He has said before he would love to come back to Bolton one day, but I doubt we would pay the wages the likes of West Ham and Spurs would pay him. Why won't we? we paid Anelka 70k a week, Gudjohnsen surely will not command more than that, what is it with us bolton fans we are forever doubting, I will spell it out, we are in a strong position to match most club outside the top4 or City as our squad is very trim, look at the big earners we have shed campo 20-30k a week, stelios 30 k a week Anelka 70k a week, Nolan 30k a week, should give us plenty of spare cash to work with.I addition to that west ham are in a poor financial state and Spurs have millions of players they need to offload before they bring in new blood. Edited July 4, 2009 by Mounts Kipper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passmosster Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 [/b] Why won't we? we paid Anelka 70k a week, Gudjohnsen surely will not command more than that, what is it with us bolton fans we are forever doubting, I will spell it out, we are in a strong position to match most club outside the top4 or City as our squad is very trim, look at the big earners we have shed campo 20-30k a week, stelios 30 k a week Anelka 70k a week, Nolan 30k a week, should give us plenty of spare cash to work with.I addition to that west ham are in a poor financial state and Spurs have millions of players they need to offload before they bring in new blood. I'd love Eidur back, but more than anything else, we need a bit of pace up front which he doesn't provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penfold Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'd love Eidur back, but more than anything else, we need a bit of pace up front which he doesn't provide. whats the point of having pace up front we don't get the ball there quick enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athywhite Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 whats the point of having pace up front we don't get the ball there quick enoughits trying to get the ball up front too quick thats been our problem the last couple of seasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest as Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 [/b] Why won't we? we paid Anelka 70k a week, Gudjohnsen surely will not command more than that, what is it with us bolton fans we are forever doubting, I will spell it out, we are in a strong position to match most club outside the top4 or City as our squad is very trim, look at the big earners we have shed campo 20-30k a week, stelios 30 k a week Anelka 70k a week, Nolan 30k a week, should give us plenty of spare cash to work with.I addition to that west ham are in a poor financial state and Spurs have millions of players they need to offload before they bring in new blood. I'm sure the clubs finances are a bit more complicated than that, Kipper! And he wouldn't come anyway, we're mid-table (at best) and the bright lights of London will always win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YATESY Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 [/b] Why won't we? we paid Anelka 70k a week, Gudjohnsen surely will not command more than that, what is it with us bolton fans we are forever doubting, I will spell it out, we are in a strong position to match most club outside the top4 or City as our squad is very trim, look at the big earners we have shed campo 20-30k a week, stelios 30 k a week Anelka 70k a week, Nolan 30k a week, should give us plenty of spare cash to work with.I addition to that west ham are in a poor financial state and Spurs have millions of players they need to offload before they bring in new blood. If that is true, then there's a bloody big hole in the clubs finances somewhere, with the way our debt has increased over the same period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 If that is true, then there's a bloody big hole in the clubs finances somewhere, with the way our debt has increased over the same period. When we left Burnden and built the reebok we had about 35 million of debt, since then we have built a new academy and spent money on the infra structure of the reebok, we have invested over the last 2 years in younger players and those are mainly English with a good sell on value, so to me 50 million of debt considering the strides the club has made is not bad, finances look O.K. to me and there is certainly no black hole, with the Sky money at ?35 million a year there is no need to worry as long as we remain in the prem, virtually every premier club will be running at a bigger debt and losing far more than BWFC every week including Man united. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YATESY Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Mount - you miss my point. I was commenting on the last two years. Over the same period of time that all those 'big earners' have left the club the debt has increased from a pretty static low-to-mid ?40M to over ?53M where it is today. Those 'big earners' have been replaced by a colection of even 'bigger earners' even though the squad has got smaller. I agree with your point of staying in the Prem, Sky and debt but your original point was that many big earners had been removed from the club in the last two years freeing up room for a few more. The Financial Accounts of Burnden Leisure paint a different picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrp Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Its hardly rocket science is it we had a wage bill that was bigger than what we were getting in hence the debt going from 35 million to 50 mill shall we carry on paying out more than we get in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THunter Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I don?t know about a hole, but the figures don?t look great. Over two years the debt has increased from ?30 million to ?53 million. At first I thought the debt may have been restructured, so that we owed more but paid less in interest. That doesn?t appear to be the case. We lost ?8 million last year on a turnover of ?60 million. The killer is the wage bill - ?39 million. How much that reduces now the likes of Anelka and Co have gone remains to be seen. Last years TV money didn?t cover it. This year?s wont either. We make next to sod all from gate receipts. ?6 million. Arsenal make that in two games. The idea that every Premier League club is worse off for debt than us doesn?t wash. Some are, some aren?t. The ones that have more debt (bar Fulham) have more income. We?re a small club. From a financial point of view it?s amazing that we?ve lasted this long in the top flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YATESY Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I don?t know about a hole, but the figures don?t look great. Over two years the debt has increased from ?30 million to ?53 million. At first I thought the debt may have been restructured, so that we owed more but paid less in interest. That doesn?t appear to be the case. We lost ?8 million last year on a turnover of ?60 million. The killer is the wage bill - ?39 million. How much that reduces now the likes of Anelka and Co have gone remains to be seen. Last years TV money didn?t cover it. This year?s wont either. We make next to sod all from gate receipts. ?6 million. Arsenal make that in two games. The idea that every Premier League club is worse off for debt than us doesn?t wash. Some are, some aren?t. The ones that have more debt (bar Fulham) have more income. We?re a small club. From a financial point of view it?s amazing that we?ve lasted this long in the top flight. We've talked over this many times. Stay in The Prem and the banks are happy that the income stream is servicing the debts. Get relegated and its a different matter! As the French lad said, its not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted July 6, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 6, 2009 From a financial point of view it?s amazing that we?ve lasted this long in the top flight. aye, but if we showed some ambition.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie_Hill Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Be great to get Eidur back though I don't see it happening. One thing it would accomplish is that it would shut Megson's critics up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Gretar Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Be great to get Eidur back though I don't see it happening. One thing it would accomplish is that it would shut Megson's critics up. Some folk wouldn't be happy if we signed Iniesta let alone Eidur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir N Lofthouse Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Eidur aint the same player anymore, also We need a quick striker to play and link up with Elmander if where going to see different style next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest as Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 When we left Burnden and built the reebok we had about 35 million of debt, since then we have built a new academy and spent money on the infra structure of the reebok, we have invested over the last 2 years in younger players and those are mainly English with a good sell on value, so to me 50 million of debt considering the strides the club has made is not bad, finances look O.K. to me and there is certainly no black hole, with the Sky money at ?35 million a year there is no need to worry as long as we remain in the prem, virtually every premier club will be running at a bigger debt and losing far more than BWFC every week including Man united. Eddie is lining his pockets, then letting us go under! Ditto Garty - nobody is that fat without being on the take. ITK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts