Just got hold of the accounts for 2009

 

Loss of ?13.2m compared to loss of ?8.1m for 2008

 

Group Turnover ?59.3m slightly up

 

Football Operations Turnover ?51.3m (up 3%)

 

Gate receipts down ?5.2m

 

Corporate hospitality ?1.8m down 22%

 

Attendances 22,845 (increase of 8%)

 

?49 season ticket for children increase ST kids numbers by 53%

 

Average ticket price ?11.29 (?13.63 last year)

 

Players bought ?5,079,067 players sold ?9,648,730

 

 

Of note, and I'm not an accountant

 

"Going concern

 

In ensuring that the group has sufficient liquid resources to meet its liabilities as they fall due, the directors have reviewed in detail the business's cash flow projections....they show a shortfall in the current level of facilities. However, the directors are currently in discussions with lenders regarding the potential securitisation of future guaranteed broadcast revenues"

 

Duckworth pay ?483,000 (up from ?376,000)

 

More to follow

Why was finishing 16th and 13th under Megson more successful than finishing 4th in 1959 and 6th in 1960?

 

Read Bolty's post again.

Read Bolty's post again.

 

Are you a bit slow?

 

You tell me in his post where it says why finishing in those low positions under Megson is more successful than finishing in the top 6 in 1959 and 1960

 

I won't be holding my breath...

What Bolty said was

Phil Gartside has presided over the most successful period in the clubs history post 1958

The word period, in this case, is to avoid taking any one particular season and using that as a benchmark against any other particular season; which you have done. The period discussed here is the one that PG has been in chrge of. Most of it has seen us play in the top flight of English football with a couple of seasons of european football thrown in and more than a few trips to see Bolton play in finals and semi-finals of major cup competitions.

OK, we won a cup in 1958 but, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't do much in the league during the 5 years prior or after that event.

OK, we won a cup in 1958 but, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't do much in the league during the 5 years prior or after that event.

You're wrong.

So 4th and 6th in two isolated seasons between 1958 and 1960 (ish) is better than the current run in the Prem. I disagree with you.

So 4th and 6th in two isolated seasons between 1958 and 1960 (ish) is better than the current run in the Prem. I disagree with you.

Nice try at duking the stats.

 

58-59 4th

59-60 6th (since when do two consectutive seasons, qualify as being 'isolated'?

56-57 9th

55-56 8th

53-54 5th

 

All within the five years margin that you specified, with a couple of dodgy seasons in there, including 1958.

Nice try at duking the stats.

 

58-59 4th

59-60 6th (since when do two consectutive seasons, qualify as being 'isolated'?

56-57 9th

55-56 8th

53-54 5th

 

All within the five years margin that you specified, with a couple of dodgy seasons in there, including 1958.

 

One could argue that back then the league was more of a level playing field, so to speak.

Are you a bit slow?

 

You tell me in his post where it says why finishing in those low positions under Megson is more successful than finishing in the top 6 in 1959 and 1960

 

I won't be holding my breath...

 

Go on, have a go.

I bet you can't hold it for twelve minutes

PS There isn't half some transparent fuckers frequenting this forum.

 

The team are playing some decent stuff at last, so let's find someone else to slag off or something else to bitch about.

Nice try at duking the stats.

 

58-59 4th

59-60 6th (since when do two consectutive seasons, qualify as being 'isolated'?

56-57 9th

55-56 8th

53-54 5th

 

All within the five years margin that you specified, with a couple of dodgy seasons in there, including 1958.

 

come on, you're a bright bloke

 

4 (was it?) consecutive seasons in the top 8 under Allardyce doesn't at least equal that - bearing in mind the different world in which we now compete?

 

if performance on the field was the only measure of a chairman, gartside would get a B+, at the very least

come on, you're a bright bloke

 

4 (was it?) consecutive seasons in the top 8 under Allardyce doesn't at least equal that - bearing in mind the different world in which we now compete?

 

if performance on the field was the only measure of a chairman, gartside would get a B+, at the very least

I've no particular agenda here. I was just disputing Mickey D's assessment of our league positions around the '58 cup win.

 

There is so much difference between that era and now that comparison is almost impossible. We'd had a near thirty-year run in Division 1 for a start.

 

FWIW, I don't think anywhere near enough credit has been given to the club as a whole for those 4 top eight finishes. When you look at the clubs were finishing below us and the money available to them, it verges on miraculous.

Are you a bit slow?

 

You tell me in his post where it says why finishing in those low positions under Megson is more successful than finishing in the top 6 in 1959 and 1960

 

I won't be holding my breath...

 

Can you not read?

 

You keep blabbing on about under Megson, did Gartside start as chairman when Megson started as manager? Maybe now you will understand that im not slow or do you want me to draw you a picture?

Edited November 4, 200916 yr by tylswhite

i know you've no agenda

 

if i thought you had, i'd not try to engage you in a discussion

 

 

theres alot can be said about these figures and gartside/duckworths pay, but i'm way more concerned that it looks like we're driving towards a cliff very fast and the vast majority of the town is apathetic

 

you just know there'll be plenty of non-attenders still whining about lack of ambition

 

well, it fcuks me off

PS There isn't half some transparent fuckers frequenting this forum.

 

The team are playing some decent stuff at last, so let's find someone else to slag off or something else to bitch about.

 

 

Its not a case of bitching , we have seen the financial results & some folk are quite rightly questioning why we have a CE who has a ?400k salary & a chairman who

 

also takes a similar salary, when we are quite obviously sliding down the pan financially .When I was a lad football chairmen usually put money into the club(maybe not our club) .

 

I know Gartside is'nt wealthy in the grand scale of things & has done a decent job , abiet with a couple of glaring mistakes , but the point is we only seem to have ONE board member

 

who contributes anything financially , unless someone out there knows differently .

 

At the end of the day this is a forum which will include a variety of viewpoints some can be percieved as negetive but nontheless are no less valid .

i know you've no agenda

 

if i thought you had, i'd not try to engage you in a discussion

 

 

theres alot can be said about these figures and gartside/duckworths pay, but i'm way more concerned that it looks like we're driving towards a cliff very fast and the vast majority of the town is apathetic

 

you just know there'll be plenty of non-attenders still whining about lack of ambition

 

well, it fcuks me off

And on that, I'm 100% with you.

We've only lost about ?12m. Nothing to worry about. The people in charge know what they are doing.

I think Mr. Davies is a very shrewd business man and knows exactly what he is doing

 

Exactly, in a similar thread a couple of years ago I was of the opinion that Mr Davies was getting a good deal out of his support of BWFC. However, since the "credit crunch" he is still getting a good deal but had we been funded by the banks then we would be in serious trouble now. Let us hope that he stays alive, and/or, his descendants are Bolton fans! I now withdraw my criticism but a loss in one company can be offset against profit in another.

 

In response to a previous post, securitisation is no longer an option. The FSA and all financial institutions in the UK can't offer that option. For further information Man City securitised season ticket sales for 10 years in advance of Eastlands which caused them problems and a celebrity restraunteur did the same in order to expand his Michelin chain, and has since had to close many of them.

 

For information, I am a company director, who prepares his own accoounts, without employing an accountant, for submission to Companies House.

 

In conclusion, if there was a significant problem then the auditors have a professional, and ethical, responsibility to report this to the shareholders, as they have done in the case of Hull City. In the case of Bolton they have not!

We've only lost about ?12m. Nothing to worry about. The people in charge know what they are doing.

Whislt we have lost ?12m, the club's valuation of the players contracts has gone up by a similar amount, so no need for concern (?)

I bet Riga earns more than Gartside and he is fucking wank.

 

We've not not 4 pages about him though.

I bet Riga earns more than Gartside and he is fucking wank.

 

We've not not 4 pages about him though.

 

Quite a good perspective imo I think people are baulking at Gartside's wage because they think being a football chairmen is easy and they would all love to do it. They would turn down an offer of half a million a year and say I will do it for ?30 grand a year

Quite a good perspective imo I think people are baulking at Gartside's wage because they think being a football chairmen is easy and they would all love to do it. They would turn down an offer of half a million a year and say I will do it for ?30 grand a year

 

 

My main baulking is linked to the bonus that is 50%+ of basic salary. The basic pay does seem reasonable compared to the going rate.

 

The players and management, its easy to justify the bonus based on league position achieved. Eddie has taken a well deserved 'bonus' for his profit share on the Anelka sale - the purchase of said player he funded. But unless Gartside and Duckworth's bonuses are based on similar, I struggle to see from the financial results presented, what targets they are working to for a 50%+ bonus to be justified.

 

 

The only way we can attempt to find out is for the question to be asked at the AGM.

Its not a case of bitching , we have seen the financial results & some folk are quite rightly questioning why we have a CE who has a ?400k salary & a chairman who

 

 

lets be fair and look a this in relative terms, ?480,000ish and ?580,000ish isn't a big amount compared to what the players are getting, lets take Nicky Hunt for example, the guys toss and since the start of the 2007/2008 season has played a total of 22 games for us but collected a pay packet that must be in excess of ?1.5M. Although we didn't have the best of seasons last year in recent years Duckworth and Gartside have been involved in getting some of the best players in the world to the Reebok and getting us to a point where we was in the top 8 and in Europe and are still a premiership club so IMO what's ?1m in football terms these days, they deserve it. If you would have been told 15 years ago we could pay 2 guys ?1m a year but you'd be watching the whites in Europe and the premiership you would have laughed and then snatched there hands off.

How the c?nting hell has this thread gone past post #14

My main baulking is linked to the bonus that is 50%+ of basic salary. The basic pay does seem reasonable compared to the going rate.

 

The players and management, its easy to justify the bonus based on league position achieved. Eddie has taken a well deserved 'bonus' for his profit share on the Anelka sale - the purchase of said player he funded. But unless Gartside and Duckworth's bonuses are based on similar, I struggle to see from the financial results presented, what targets they are working to for a 50%+ bonus to be justified.

 

 

The only way we can attempt to find out is for the question to be asked at the AGM.

Has there been an open AGM for the last couple of years?

are there still some shares in the hands of others than Edwin, then

 

MUGS!