How Long?

[Casino]

I don't need to do an investigation. I just pointed out the facts of the situation, which not one apologist on here has been able to contradict yet.

 

have you stuidied the accounts as you were told to?

 

all you need to know is in there

[Grasshopper]

It's hard to remain objective when the passion for your club is involved.

I rant after most games but deep down I want DF to do well, can I see it not yet!

[Casino]

I don't want to boycott - I'll be there on Sat. I'm just presenting it as an option. I'd rather we had more fans turn up than have been doing and we make it very clear how we feel about the total mismanagement of our club.

 

 

putting aside the discussion over the manager as that is just one part of the 'total mismanagemnt of our club'

 

what the fcuk do you want as the outcome

 

eddie turfed out?

 

and how do you see that playing out

 

just so folk can decide if you're a complete loon, like

Edited September 23, 2014 by Casino

[davidjack]

Apparently they're all a work of fiction anyway, according to those apparently in the know on here...so probably won't get me very far in uncovering the mystery of the missing millions.

[davidjack]

This was about DF. That's the immediate issue. The man is taking us down. He's got fans staying away in their droves, or arguing bitterly with each other. We need to get rid NOW. Another game with him in charge is another game wasted and another step closer to the wheels completely falling off.

 

On ED, I was simply questioning his sainthood status, and asking, not unreasonably, how we've run up such monumental debts (the like of which, I repeat, no other comparable club with the recent success we've had has run up) if he's the great benefactor people claim he is (people like PG, who's done very well out of his reign). Are we saying we'd be 250 million, 300 million in debt without his largesse? Of course not. And why, if he loves the club so much, has he until recently been charging a hefty slice of interest? Did Jack Walker do that at Blackburn?

 

My point was that whoever was running the club would have to go some to be worse than the double act we currently have - 2 men who've presided over the biggest unexplained losses in English football (with City and Chelsea there's a clear trail of where the money's gone).

[Casino]

so

 

eddie davies

 

what do you want to happen

 

its no use just stamping your feet and shouting boycott

 

what do you want to happen with eddie davies

 

(if you like, assume he's trousered 160 million quid seeing as no other club etc etc)

Edited September 23, 2014 by Casino

[davidjack]

I'd like some answers to some of those questions, first off. Rather than the deafening silence which has accompanied our accelerating decline.

I'd then like the fans to start having a say in the future direction of their club. A model which seems to have worked rather well in Germany.

What I don't like the idea of is more of this same old shite - where the debt keeps on rising to inexplicably high levels, the fans become increasingly disconnected from the club and it all becomes a vicious circle ending with us back in 1987 again. That's what I really don't like the idea of.

[hughmungus]

Having just listened to a discussion about Leeds on Talkshite I am beginning to think thank god we have ED because if he does sell up then we have no control over who gets the club and could end up in the same situation as Leeds with an owner who has had 32 managers in 22 years and achieved very little.

The problem for me is DF, and not ED, Gartside and co. and always has been. At the moment I put my faith in ED to run his club properly but question why he is keeping faith in Super Dougie.

Edited September 23, 2014 by hughmungus

[Guest]

I'd like some answers to some of those questions, first off. Rather than the deafening silence which has accompanied our accelerating decline.

I'd then like the fans to start having a say in the future direction of their club. A model which seems to have worked rather well in Germany.

What I don't like the idea of is more of this same old shite - where the debt keeps on rising to inexplicably high levels, the fans become increasingly disconnected from the club and it all becomes a vicious circle ending with us back in 1987 again. That's what I really don't like the idea of.

 

 

Have you called Mr Gartside?

 

Have you called anyone else?

 

Try them, you never know. I have generally found the club helpful. If you are successful, come and tell us about it.

[Traf]

I'm not sure how the whole Eddie Davies/Phil Gartside debt situation could be any clearer.

 

1. ED owns the club

2. He pays PG to be his chairman ie a salaried position. 

3. PG still has a job despite the club's financial position.

 

Is it a massive leap from those facts to me believing that Eddie's unconcerned about the debt and that he's happy enough with the way PG runs the club?

[EyesRight]

I wouldn't get rid of DF yet though, I'd get rid at October international break, which I fully expect to happen if nothing changes.

 

I like the way we give our managers a chance, it's an embarrassment potting managers after less than a year.

 

His time is up, don't get me wrong, just if people on here had their way, we'd have already hounded out his replacement.

[mickbrown]

I wouldn't get rid of DF yet though, I'd get rid at October international break, which I fully expect to happen if nothing changes.

 

I like the way we give our managers a chance, it's an embarrassment potting managers after less than a year.

 

His time is up, don't get me wrong, just if people on here had their way, we'd have already hounded out his replacement.

 

Or found a bloke that was doing a decent job?

[davidjack]

If his time is up then what's the point in inflicting any more misery on people...or further damaging our league position? Makes no sense. We've been more than patient. 23 and a half months of bafflingly inept management.

[Zico]

I wouldn't get rid of DF yet though, I'd get rid at October international break, which I fully expect to happen if nothing changes.

 

I like the way we give our managers a chance, it's an embarrassment potting managers after less than a year.

 

His time is up, don't get me wrong, just if people on here had their way, we'd have already hounded out his replacement.

 

I agree with all that till the bit in bold

 

are you saying that "we" hound out managers and/or players, or not?

 

it starts off sounding like not, whilst finishing by having a go at fans at the same time for hounding people out

 

I don't think Megson or, for example, Nolan were hounded out, but some folk will have you believe "we" did

 

whereas the club, as you say, has shown they give folk a chance

 

except sammy lee, though to be fair, it was hard to justify keeping him

[tomski]

I wouldn't get rid of DF yet though, I'd get rid at October international break, which I fully expect to happen if nothing changes.

 

I like the way we give our managers a chance, it's an embarrassment potting managers after less than a year.

 

His time is up, don't get me wrong, just if people on here had their way, we'd have already hounded out his replacement.

Couldn't agree more about the giving our managers a chance bit.

[Guest]

By no means is this a justification for Dougie, I think his time is up. But one has to look at teams down the bottom end. Fulham, Cardiff, Wigan.

 

Clearly after relegation bouncing back is tough. Wigan are almost a mirror image of ourselves. First season down, struggle, sack the manager, improve finish with a chance of promotion, miss out. Next season everyone thinks you have it cracked with new manager in place and an impressive run of form and a strong squad on paper. Start badly....

 

I think as a club we've lost a lot of spirit since going down. I remember the final premiership game at Stoke and despite the situation the fans made a tremendous racket and the players, whatever failings we had, put in a real shift. We were a very poor side and probably did well to only go down by such a fine margin. But since then it does feel like something critical and integral has been lost and is missing. Hard to put your finger on it.

 

I think the disconnect between the fans and the club has grown and as a result Gartside is pretty much evading any limelight. Which I cannot blame him for. Ultimately I suspect he feels as grim as anyone else but he has a job to do....

 

There seem to be a lot of angry people who abuse the manager and fans who don't totally echo their thinking, but a bit like UKIP voters, whilst they might have some valid points, their focus on a singlularly distorted issue is wrong. Whilst it is absolutely time to let Freedman out of his misery, the multitude of issues we are facing don't suddenly walk out with the manager or even the Chairman.

 

We are on a downwards slope and in my view have not yet touched the bottom. There may be temporary diversions but what happens when once again next season we have to patch up a squad and replace players like Mason, Lee etc with even less money?

Edited September 23, 2014 by bwfcfan5

[DazBob]

How many managers have we hounded out?

 

I can think of only Megson. We're hardly serial hounder outerers.

[Eddie]

This was about DF. That's the immediate issue. The man is taking us down. He's got fans staying away in their droves, or arguing bitterly with each other. We need to get rid NOW. Another game with him in charge is another game wasted and another step closer to the wheels completely falling off.

 

On ED, I was simply questioning his sainthood status, and asking, not unreasonably, how we've run up such monumental debts (the like of which, I repeat, no other comparable club with the recent success we've had has run up) if he's the great benefactor people claim he is (people like PG, who's done very well out of his reign). Are we saying we'd be 250 million, 300 million in debt without his largesse? Of course not. And why, if he loves the club so much, has he until recently been charging a hefty slice of interest? Did Jack Walker do that at Blackburn?

 

My point was that whoever was running the club would have to go some to be worse than the double act we currently have - 2 men who've presided over the biggest unexplained losses in English football (with City and Chelsea there's a clear trail of where the money's gone).

If you want to see where these 'debts' occurred then just go back through the last 10 years accounts. The accounts have been audited by Deloitte who have at no point qualified their opinion, you can take from that that the accounts give a true and fair view and are not materially misstated. Now we've confirmed the accounts are accurate you will see that each year we had expenses that outweigh our income and therefore we year on year recorded a loss that varied in size.

 

In order to cover the losses we needed finance from somewhere, the vast majority of this was borrowed from ED's company, ie borrowing from himself and at very preferable terms to us.

 

I will say again that questioning the higher management decisions as to whether we should have been making losses is fair enough, I'd point out that there are very few profit making football clubs though and nobody was complaining when we were flying high and successful.

 

Our biggest single loss was in the last accounts c£50m this occurred because we lost the huge tv revenue but still had premiership wages, again you could question whether wages should have drastic relegation clauses in but I am sure if this meant we weren't signing good enough players in the prem due to the clause you would also again be complaining.

 

I will say again that the £160m debt is NOT debt, it is owed to out owner and is equity, there is 0% interest and unless we get bought out by some oil rich billionaire then ED's company will never see it again.

 

As for your question of where would we be without him bank-rolling us, well theoretically the £160m would be owed to the bank, we'd be paying huge interest payments due to how risky we are, and they would have wound us up a long time ago due to our inability to generate profits and repay. More realistically we would never have been given the money in the 1st place, would never have been able to pay the wages for some of the greats we have seen and I would never have seen my team go toe to toe with Bayern Munich in Europe.

 

This 'debt' is not stopping us spending any money, ED could want to spend £100m on players but he can't due to FFP, we would be hit with a transfer embargo and you would once again be moaning. Forget about this fucking £160m number, the only debt you need to worry about is the amount owed to the bank which if I remember correctly was c£10m in the last accounts and has apparently been paid off within the current year with our parachute payments. We are effectively debt free, however have low turnover and therefore now have to make our expenses low.

 

I hope this helps your investigation and I apologise to everyone else for once again rambling about our finances

Edited September 23, 2014 by Eddie

[Casino]

eddie - for balance - he could, i believe GIVE money to the club

 

it is just loans that aren't allowed?

[Eddie]

eddie - for balance - he could, i believe GIVE money to the club

 

it is just loans that aren't allowed?

Fair enough, I was under the impression that this was the case for up to £3m on top of the loss of £5m which came to the total loss allowed of £8m.

 

Either way this £160m figure that Davidjack is so hung up on has no bearing on it

[Casino]

aye, i'm not even sure myself, but i think thats the case

 

i think he could gift us money but if he did, i'd be expecting him to be carted off by the men in white coats

[Carlos]

Is there not a £6m or £8m cap on these "gifts"?

[davidjack]

Eddie, thanks for taking the time and trouble.

 

My point is still this: whether these debts are in effect notional or not, they've still been run up on the watch of ED and PG. As you allude to, we somehow allowed ourselves to amass a £50m debt in one season by not making contingencies for the possibility of relegation. That surely constitutes bad financial management? And I maintain that despite all the star players we've enjoyed, we got them on the cheap relatively speaking - not one did we pay a fee for (apart from Anelka who we doubled our money on...and who we should have trebled our money on if PG wasn't such a poor negotiator...£15m for a world class striker in his prime to the then richest club on the planet was a steal). Yes we paid some big wages, but not significantly more than most other clubs. And for every Okocha there was a Pedersen or a Charlton. It was Allardyce's genius in the transfer market we can thank for those days, not Eddie's generosity.

 

All that said, even if you think we should stick with this double act, isn't it time they came out and spelt out their vision for where the club is going? What's the long term plan? Is it to invest in other non-football related activities, like free schools?

[Garrp]

Eddie, thanks for taking the time and trouble.

 

My point is still this: whether these debts are in effect notional or not, they've still been run up on the watch of ED and PG. As you allude to, we somehow allowed ourselves to amass a £50m debt in one season by not making contingencies for the possibility of relegation. That surely constitutes bad financial management? And I maintain that despite all the star players we've enjoyed, we got them on the cheap relatively speaking - not one did we pay a fee for (apart from Anelka who we doubled our money on...and who we should have trebled our money on if PG wasn't such a poor negotiator...£15m for a world class striker in his prime to the then richest club on the planet was a steal). Yes we paid some big wages, but not significantly more than most other clubs. And for every Okocha there was a Pedersen or a Charlton. It was Allardyce's genius in the transfer market we can thank for those days, not Eddie's generosity.

 

All that said, even if you think we should stick with this double act, isn't it time they came out and spelt out their vision for where the club is going? What's the long term plan? Is it to invest in other non-football related activities, like free schools?

 

This may be what you believe but the reality is far different.

 

We had the 6th/7th highest wage bill in the premier league when allardyce left.

 

it has been proven there is no link between transfer fees and league position

 

it has been proven there is a link between wages paid and league position

[Eddie]

aye, i'm not even sure myself, but i think thats the case

 

i think he could gift us money but if he did, i'd be expecting him to be carted off by the men in white coats

I've just had a flick over it again, we can make a loss of up to £3m in the year without any repercussions.

 

We can then make up to £8m loss but the owner has to chuck the money in for the excess over £3m as equity (max £5m a year), this can't be a loan.

 

The only way I can see an owner 'giving' more cash to us is through some form of revenue, ie ED's other business sponsoring everything they possibly can throughout the company and paying us handsomely for it. I'm not to sure as to the rules surrounding this method though