Here We Go - Itk Transfer Gossip

[Casino]

But gonzo, the debt was rising fast when the good times were rolling (when TV revenues were going through the roof, we were finishing way above where we'd budgeted for and when our wage to turnover ratio was never over 70 per cent). That's my main beef. Yes we pissed some money away on bad signings in the last year in the Prem and first year or so down here, but name a club who hasn't wasted money - but has run up a debt anything like ours. And who oversaw these purchases? The likes of Mears and Andrews? Since getting his one big decision right - appointing Sam - he seems to have been asleep on the job. And you couldn't turn the radio on at one time without hearing him giving his view on the state of football. And now? With BWFC in the shit? Not a fucking dickie bird.

 

 

apart from 2011-12 for one

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/18/premier-league-club-accounts-debt

 

and 2010-11 for two

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/24/football-premier-league-club-accounts

 

and 2009-10 for 3

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/may/19/football-club-accounts-debt

 

 

and all the time, pitiful fcuking gate monies

[Casino]

anyway

 

lets assume we need money

 

lennon has brought in two right backs

 

seems a bit extravagant for a cash strapped club when we know vela can do a passable job

 

wilson and vela ought to be enough, so putting 2 and 2, im getting vela being sold

 

hes seemingly well down a pretty long queue of central midfielders

[davidjack]

I stand corrected - it was over 70 in one of those and over 80 in a couple. One of those years doesn't show any commercial revenue though. But the point remains that we weren't living beyond our means - we weren't spending more on wages than we were bringing in, and as we know, we never spent on huge transfers relative to where we finished (Anelka we doubled our money on - which paid for Elmander - other than that, nothing over £5m). And how come all those other clubs on those lists with much higher wage to turnover figures managed not to get themselves into £170m worth of debt?

[Cheese]

I stand corrected - it was over 70 in one of those and over 80 in a couple. One of those years doesn't show any commercial revenue though. But the point remains that we weren't living beyond our means - we weren't spending more on wages than we were bringing in, and as we know, we never spent on huge transfers relative to where we finished (Anelka we doubled our money on - which paid for Elmander - other than that, nothing over £5m). And how come all those other clubs on those lists with much higher wage to turnover figures managed not to get themselves into £170m worth of debt?

 

As lovely as it would be, it's not "our" money.

[Casino]

I stand corrected - it was over 70 in one of those and over 80 in a couple. One of those years doesn't show any commercial revenue though. But the point remains that we weren't living beyond our means - we weren't spending more on wages than we were bringing in, and as we know, we never spent on huge transfers relative to where we finished (Anelka we doubled our money on - which paid for Elmander - other than that, nothing over £5m). And how come all those other clubs on those lists with much higher wage to turnover figures managed not to get themselves into £170m worth of debt?

 

 

no, we didnt

 

if youre not going to make some effort to incude some truths, neither am I

 

 

net spend on transfers, approx 32 million 2005-15 (its actually worse than that as we had to bung villa some of the cahill money and the anelka profit wasnt 'football club profit'

 

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/bolton-wanderers/alletransfers/verein/355

 

fwiw, i doubt some of the numbers but theyre all i can be arsed finding

Edited August 25, 2015 by Casino

[davidjack]

So £3m net spend a year over 10 years...7 of those being in the Prem - as I say, hardly breaking the bank were we? And the TV money doubled in that time. And we finished way above the 17th we were told we budgeted for in all of those seasons in the Prem bar the last one (at around half a million a place). And we were spending less on wages than we were bringing in. So where do you get the £170m from? (well let's say £135m cos we always had that inexplicable debt of £35m or so for years after the move from Burnden, even tho we were told the move would be cost neutral - that was part of its appeal...it wasn't profit neutral for Gordon Hargreaves, I'll wager, but that's another story).

Edited August 25, 2015 by davidjack

[awandering]

Money has been invested in the hotel, the Academy and the training ground which I guess makes up some of the debt.

[davidjack]

On Anelka, we were told he cost £8m and sold for £15m - so I was rounding up slightly. He was 28, in his prime, going to the then richest club on the planet, having already sold for more money in multiple transfers than any player in history. And this was around the time Blackburn sold that forward who had one good season whose name I can't even remember for £18m - to City. Another good bit of business by Phil.

Edited August 25, 2015 by davidjack

[davidjack]

The hotel would pay for itself and our whole commercial set-up was the envy of big clubs with old grounds like Everton - so Gareth Moores told me once. Whatever happened to him?

[Casino]

On Anelka, we were told he cost £8m and sold for £15m - so I was rounding up slightly.

 

 

youre not even fcuking close

 

read the accounts

[Casino]

So £3m net spend a year over 10 years...7 of those being in the Prem - as I say, hardly breaking the bank were we? And the TV money doubled in that time. And we finished way above the 17th we were told we budgeted for in all of those seasons in the Prem bar the last one (at around half a million a place). And we were spending less on wages than we were bringing in. So where do you get the £170m from? (well let's say £135m cos we always had that inexplicable debt of £35m or so for years after the move from Burnden, even tho we were told the move would be cost neutral - that was part of its appeal...it wasn't profit neutral for Gordon Hargreaves, I'll wager, but that's another story).

 

 

the 35 million was because we got nowhere near the predicted vale for burnden

 

you need to ask john prescott about that one

[davidjack]

I will - it sounds like they contradict the figures that were released to the media at the time of the sale...which is rather worrying.

 

You're not questioning the £3m a year net spend I see.

[Casino]

So £3m net spend a year over 10 years

 

 

aye, 'only' 35 million

 

plus the 35 base line

 

and each year making losses

 

you add it up

[davidjack]

That's a miscalculation on quite a grand scale. From hazy memory wasn't the sale only supposed to bring in something like £7m?

[davidjack]

I reckon there's a missing 100 million or so on those figures. Not to mention the missing millions through sheer incompetence in the transfer sales market.

[Casino]

I will - it sounds like they contradict the figures that were released to the media at the time of the sale...which is rather worrying.

 

fook knows why it worries you

 

both selling for twice what eddie paid and bwfc making no profit can be true

 

either read the accounts or get somebody to explain them to you

 

now, goodnight

[davidjack]

It can be true - but only if we accept that Saint Eddie may, in fact, not be quite the philanthropist some make him out to be. Which was kind of my point.

[Cheese]

It can be true - but only if we accept that Saint Eddie may, in fact, not be quite the philanthropist some make him out to be. Which was kind of my point.

 

I hope you re-read these posts in the morning when you're sober.

[davidjack]

Perfectly sober pal.

[Cheese]

Perfectly sober pal.

 

Fair enough. Goodnight pal.

[Gonk]

Unfortunately (for him) I think he is

[birch-chorley]

In an ideal world Cheese, we wouldn't be where we are ie we wouldn't have allowed the debt to rise to the levels it has - levels which no other club apart from the likes of Chelsea and City has managed (and them by spending £30m on every player they buy - something we never did, despite what a rewriting of history by some often implies we did). Like an alcoholic, recognising you have a problem needs to be the first step. Not blithely carrying on - handing out more matches to the arsonist who just burnt your house down, to mix metaphors.

There are lots of qualified chief executives out there with experience of not running businesses into the ground, or of rescuing those which have been. How about we appoint one? And how about ED spells out what his intentions really are? If he loves the club so much, why does he never speak to the fans, to put them in the picture? And why did he, until very recently, charge a rate of interest on his investment that no bank would have given him?

I think your correct when you compare us to Chelsea & City in the fact that we like them owe / owed the vast majority of debt to the club owner

 

Very different from situations at Pompey, Leeds, Wimbledon etc who owed everyman and his dog the HMRC being the main one. In these instances the creditors turn the screw and things really turn nasty.

 

I'm not 100% but I think I'm right in thinking both Chelsea and City owners converted the debt into equity at some point, ED could do the same if he is successful in finding a buyer who will give him reasonable recompense for the assets the club has.

 

In the meantime it's 0% interest, non repayable without 10 years notice (I'd love a £170m loan at those rates thank you very much).

 

He doesn't want to put any more in so the club has to wash its own face from now on, that's fair enough for me.

 

Is PG pulling in too much as a % of turnover, based on the last set of accounts then he probably is but the last set of accounts don't tell us what he is pulling in today now things are much tighter.

[Ratwhite]

So, still no transfer gossip...

[Guest]

Is it

 

a) That folks can't read accounts?

Can't be bothered?

c) Something else?

[jagermoot]

That escalated quickly.

 

No transfer news? Thought we had sold clough and vela when i saw 5 new pages of "ITK news"