Not everyone will be able to make it on Thursday. If anyone who isn't attending, would like a question to be asked, please put it on this thread and we will try to get it answered.

Edited January 25, 201016 yr by Horwich

Defending with 11 men back on set pieces makes sense if you know your football as OC explained it. The opposing team will push all their boys up as there is no one to mark. We have are fastest boys on the edge of our box, defending of course but they are there ready for the quick break. Makes sense to me.

 

So the Managers that don't employ that tactic don't know their football?? Give me a fucking break...

 

If we're going to get into it properly, I've never seen (unless a team is losing and there's little time left) a team consistently push all of their men up for a corner because the opposition have all of their men back - they always leave one back - this becomes two if a man is left up front and so on.

 

Tell me how many "quick breaks" you have seen Bolton perform from corners when we've had all of our men back?

 

The ball will more often than not be re-delivered into the box from the clearance in the 2nd phase if you have nobody left forward...it doesn't drop conveniently to these so-called fast players of ours very often does it?? It gets headed / hoofed clear as far as possible for the vast majority of the time....and is therefore picked up by the opposition and slung in again.

 

That said...and to be balanced - I do believe that the tactic works initially as it lessens the space in the area - proven by the fact that we have conceded very few goals from set plays this season....

 

However, I do believe it has had a great contribution towards us being camped in our half and having terrible stats for possession and territory

and your question was? brainbox

 

were you one of said plantpots?

Open a new thread to talk about corners. Back to the Fans Forum!

 

 

Conspiracy Theory time - why was the second half of the event so short? Why have a "comfort break" at 8.25 if the event needs to end by 8.45 or 8.50? I couldn't understand that, unless some news came through that Coyle and Gartside needed to get on with - most odd!

 

 

As someone on here said, a number of people who asked question missed the opportunity with the lack of a follow-up one. Like:

 

- When Gartside said we owed no debt to any bank, why don't the accounts read like that then? Why does it show in the Notes "bank Loans" and "Bank Overdraft". If all the debt is to Eddie Davies and his off-shore companies, then why not mention that in the Notes.

IMO, Gartside was bending the truth on this answer.

 

- the question about the shirt being changed. Coyle hinted that this might happen, sounded like the players and him don't like i either. Followup question should have been about the shite corporate club badge and changing that too

 

etc etc etc

 

 

It was a good evening but too short for me but maybe the reason may become clearer before the end of transfer window.

Cant be arsed reading back through the previous pages but did anyone mention the club badge and that we want rid of the ribbons

Cant be arsed reading back through the previous pages but did anyone mention the club badge and that we want rid of the ribbons

 

The lad who asked the question about the current shirt missed the chance on the badge. Shirts are like fashion, some like them some don't. What unites us is the dislike for the corporate shite that we use for a badge.

 

 

A lad on our table was going to ask it as part of a bigger question to Gartside but the restriction to only 3 questions after the break ruined any hopes of that!

Edited January 29, 201016 yr by YATESY

The lad who asked the question about the current shirt missed the chance on the badge. Shirts are like fashion, some like them some don't. What unites us is the dislike for the corporate shite that we use for a badge.

 

 

 

It was a woman & whoever does her hair wants sacking. You're right, they are like fashion, I just thought she looked like she had just come from a shift waitressing.

- When Gartside said we owed no debt to any bank, why don't the accounts read like that then? Why does it show in the Notes "bank Loans" and "Bank Overdraft". If all the debt is to Eddie Davies and his off-shore companies, then why not mention that in the Notes.

IMO, Gartside was bending the truth on this answer.

 

 

The answer could simply be that the bank loans were paid off after the date the last accounts were published.

 

No bending of the truth at all.

Cant be arsed reading back through the previous pages but did anyone mention the club badge and that we want rid of the ribbons

 

No they didn't, which was a bit disappointing. However they've said they'll be doing another forum so there should be another chance to bring it up. Hopefully in the future they'll be a few less poor questions and (as has been said) the opportunity to raise follow up questions. Was very please all in all though and thought Gartside was excellent.

Cant be arsed reading back through the previous pages but did anyone mention the club badge and that we want rid of the ribbons

 

yes somebody asked "owen, whats the one thing wrong with this club that needs changing immediately"

 

coyle repied "that fuckin shite badge and them damn gay pride ribbons"

The answer could simply be that the bank loans were paid off after the date the last accounts were published.

 

No bending of the truth at all.

 

hmm maybe eddie doesnt have the money (and even if he did he probably makes more interest keeping offshore), so he borrows from the bank at a low rate and lends to the club at high rate.

 

lots of bending imo.

The answer could simply be that the bank loans were paid off after the date the last accounts were published.

 

No bending of the truth at all.

 

 

We'll see next August but the latest accounts do not read that we have no external debt.

 

Bank Overdrafts 3.8M

Bank Loans 20.1M

 

I'm sure we would have heard something by now if all this had been cleared off our balance sheet since 30th June 2009 and converted into loans from Eddie Davies and his Moonshift Investments.

 

 

IMO Gartside gave a smoke-and-mirrors answer to move the evening on to nice questions for Owen to take!

We'll see next August but the latest accounts do not read that we have no external debt.

 

Bank Overdrafts 3.8M

Bank Loans 20.1M

 

I'm sure we would have heard something by now if all this had been cleared off our balance sheet since 30th June 2009 and converted into loans from Eddie Davies and his Moonshift Investments.

 

 

IMO Gartside gave a smoke-and-mirrors answer to move the evening on to nice questions for Owen to take!

 

The accounts only measure up to a certain period in time - so lots can happen after the accounting period.

 

 

Without going back through my old posts, I seem to recall that the accounts reported somewhere that one of Davies businesses had provided a credit line on ??100 million approximately to the club of which at the time only something like ??23 million had been taken up.

 

I speculated at the time that the credit facility was probably to pay off the banks and thus be indebted to Davies. This as the advantage of removing any strings the banks may have made on their loans.

 

Homer is correct that Davies charges the club an arrangement fee for the credit facility and charges something like 10% interest on the loan ??? but compare that with the recent ??504 million bond issue at United which was at something like 8.5% interest ??? so the ???commercial??? rate of interest charge by Davies does not seem unreasonable.

 

At the end of the day it is all Davies money anyway ??? he is only paying it from Bolton (which he owns) to his other business which as lent it the money to survive!

 

Without Davies money there would be no club as we know it now ??? so I can???t really see what the concern is?

Would like to add that I have not had a fit at my computer, and that the post above has appeared as it has because the system does not yet seem to be able to recognise characters such as the pound sign, inverted commas, apostrophes etcetera.

Edited January 29, 201016 yr by Sluffy

Mr Gartside was in the hotel after having a drink. Don't think he was busy doing anything else

i can't believe people get so wound up about a fucking badge! FFS get a grip

Great post Sluffy.

 

Btw I know about the pound signs etc.

 

 

Its fantastic that that we have a great benefactor in Eddie Davies. He is the quiet man of the club and people forget he is there sometimes. I would say he has had a great effect on our club than the coal man up the road, although he did buy the league, something Eddie wont be able to do these days considering the power of the top 4 clubs.

 

 

People at the club cannot hold Eddie in high enough regard.

Sluffy, I think you are spot on. Moonshift did increase their loan facilities for BWFC from GBP 7.5M to 60.5M.

 

Mine was a loaded question, I am just amazed that Gartside hasn't made more of what a great financial position we are in.

anyone mentioned over aggressive stewards?

anyone mentioned over aggressive stewards?

 

 

No but surely that would have fallen into the "pointless questions" bin.

 

 

What would you expect Coyle or Gartside to say?

No but surely that would have fallen into the "pointless questions" bin.

 

 

What would you expect Coyle or Gartside to say?

 

Not sure what Coyle would say and it wouldn't be top of my list, but I don't think it's a pointless question if aimed at Gartside is it?

 

Not as though they have a Q&A session with the Chief Steward, so when is there opportunity to ask about it if it's an issue?

Not sure what Coyle would say and it wouldn't be top of my list, but I don't think it's a pointless question if aimed at Gartside is it?

 

Not as though they have a Q&A session with the Chief Steward, so when is there opportunity to ask about it if it's an issue?

 

Gartside wouldn't have answered such a question last night.

 

He was there to show willing with some good but short answers, for example when asked about Gary Megson's statement that he was told about the sale of Anelka to Chelsea in January on virtually his first day as manager - Gartside's answer was that was what Anelka may have said to Megson!

 

You had to be there to realise that Gartside was not for any long answers last night. If he couldn't give an answer in 1 or 2 sentances then he passed the microphone to Owen Coyle.

No but surely that would have fallen into the "pointless questions" bin.

 

 

What would you expect Coyle or Gartside to say?

 

Well when the club is trying to win back fans and get bums on seats? and as someone said on here yesterday after the united v city game no stewards to be seen after coins and a bottle thrown at Bellamy but a bit of normal banter with away fans at the Reebok and out you go? Surely Gartside could handle that question? so no Yatesy wouldnt class this as " pointless" but very relevant in what the club is now trying to rectify

Sluffy, I think you are spot on. Moonshift did increase their loan facilities for BWFC from GBP 7.5M to 60.5M.

 

Theres an old article here http://www.independe...ght-572519.html about Eddies takeover

Next time, they need to filter out the OAP Supporters Accoc and assorted other fools.

Next time, they need to filter out the OAP Supporters Accoc and assorted other fools.

 

The only decent question was about the debt to be honest and I quite liked the one about Gartside's 2 tier plan which he clearly backtracked on!

 

Asking "Do you rate X?" is pointless, I think in future they should pre-submit questions and sift out the rubbish