The Bolton section of the Football Finances site has been created.

 

The aim is to explain the club finances in as plain English as possible. Please have a look, and feedback any typos, or other mistakes.

 

There is more than the usual amount of comment on the site. Usually it is left up to the reader to make their own opinions. Howver as more and more clusb are examined and it becomes clear how poorly run some clubs are it has beceom less easy to avoid making comment !

 

Bolton Finances

Fuck me this is boring. At the end of the day, we support a football club, not a bunch of accountants. The financial ins-and-outs are irrelevant to us.

 

 

agreed

agreed

 

Portsmouth fans agree too, or did.

Portsmouth fans agree too, or did.

 

And what difference would it have made to Portsmouth if the fans had an intimate understanding of the clubs finances? I'll tell you - zero.

Portsmouth fans agree too, or did.

 

Would they swap it all for that FA Cup win? I doubt it, even tough their Directors probably would, and theres the difference.

plenty interest in football, just not the nuances of the ownership of every club. Do you know who owns Stoke or Hull ? No, me either

 

Which begs the question, why the fuck have you made that tinpot site then?

Would they swap it all for that FA Cup win? I doubt it, even tough their Directors probably would, and theres the difference.

 

True that

plenty interest in football, just not the nuances of the ownership of every club. Do you know who owns Stoke or Hull ? No, me either

To be fair, I'm not sure anybody outside of Stoke or Hull really cares who owns those clubs, it doesn't matter to us does it?

To be fair, I'm not sure anybody outside of Stoke or Hull really cares who owns those clubs, it doesn't matter to us does it?

 

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

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

 

I thought you were a Bolton fan thats all..

Portsmouth fans agree too, or did.

 

 

fwiw, i do beleive you have received some unfair 'comments' on here.

 

but you cant be suprised if people dont share your interest and then comment when many of your 'facts' are very far from the truth (or what is believed to be the truth)

Edited January 14, 201016 yr by HomerJay

Which begs the question, why the fuck have you made that tinpot site then?

 

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

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

 

 

I think we can all agree on that.

fyi, i do beleive you have received some unfair 'comments' on here.

 

but you cant be suprised if people dont share your interest and then comment when many of your 'facts' are very far from the truth (or what is believed to be the truth)

 

 

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

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

 

 

WHY?

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

 

The acquisitons part only shows the increase in the amortised amount - not the total amount.

The acquisitons part only shows the increase in the amortised amount - not the total amount.

 

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.

any chance of a reply to my post macbeth?

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.

 

The point I was making was that Soccerbase doesn't help much as it shows neither the capital outlay nor the year on year change. The cash that's gone out of the Club isn't on Soccerbase, it's in Note 25 to the accounts. To me that's a better guide.

 

There are a number of possible lines of thought on whether Big Sam had it right (other than the results speak for themselves)

 

One is he had it bob-on, but the squad had little or no re-sale value (other than Anelka, Diouf and Nolan), the other is that he didn't invest heavily enough in the future (preferring to look at the here and now). I'm sure the ginger tosser we've just got shut of would argue that there's more re-sale value in the squad we have now as the overall NBV is higher. The reality is that the NBV figure only shows you what's been paid over time, not what the market would pay for who you've bought.

 

And with that I shall head back into retirement at the risk of boring any more of the posters shitless.

Edited January 14, 201016 yr by worthy4england

Just to put my simple mind straight...

 

You said our total net liabilities are 31m and total assets are around 75m. This means our total debt is 106m.

 

Is 106m correct because in another graph, you say B.Leisure has handed out 62m in loans. Where does the remaining 42m (106-62) in debts come from? The interest payments of 4.4m on 106m don't stack up, surely, when you say the interest payments on most of the loans are high and we know ED charges 10% on some of the loans?

 

Also if net debt is 72m, and total debts are 106m, then we have 34m of liquid assets? If we assume liquid assets of football clubs are potential transfer fees, the book value of players is only 25m so I'm wondering how the figures stack up

 

Cheers

 

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.

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.

 

 

and there lies the answer.

 

 

Be it his own debts or acting as guarantor for the bank loans, as long as Davies * stays around things will be ok.

 

(* and we stay in The Prem or if we get relegated we bounce straight back)

 

 

 

From a Financial Controller, I have to say your information is very impressive but I'm assuming you haven't been on the course "Financial Reporting for the non-Finance Manager".

From a Financial Controller, I have to say your information is very impressive but I'm assuming you haven't been on the course "Financial Reporting for the non-Finance Manager".

 

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.

 

BORING

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.

 

Just fuck off now

Just fuck off now

 

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

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

 

From the few posts I've read

 

You're not a Bolton fan?

 

You have stated incorrect FACTS

 

yet YOU are telling US to question OUR clubs directors after the most succesfull period in 50? years