Marvellous stuff Eddie

 

Edit ; Are you actually Eddie Davies

Edited August 26, 201510 yr by superjohnmcginlay

Net cash spend on players in 2013-14 was £13m?! Where the fuck was that figure plucked from? And the idea we had a net spend every year of £8m between 2007 and 2014 is also bollocks. If those figures are representative of our accounting generally then no wonder we're £182m in debt - whether that debt's real or imaginary.

Very good analysis Eddie.

 

Whichever way you look at it, Eddie Davies has put a fortune into the club and not got anything monetary out.

 

So far as I can see, he's never interfered with managers like David Goldwhatnot  at West Ham or Levy at Spurs.

 

He's been a model owner, just hope that he can pass the baton on.

Net cash spend on players in 2013-14 was £13m?! Where the fuck was that figure plucked from? And the idea we had a net spend every year of £8m between 2007 and 2014 is also bollocks. If those figures are representative of our accounting generally then no wonder we're £182m in debt - whether that debt's real or imaginary.

Do you think players sign for free ?

Net cash spend on players in 2013-14 was £13m?! Where the fuck was that figure plucked from? And the idea we had a net spend every year of £8m between 2007 and 2014 is also bollocks. If those figures are representative of our accounting generally then no wonder we're £182m in debt - whether that debt's real or imaginary.

 

Ever heard of a cash flow?

 

FY13:

 

Cash outflow on purchase of players (£6m)

Cash inflow on sale of players £1.3m

Net cash outflow (£4.7m)

 

FY14:

 

Cash outflow on purchase of players (£9.8m)

Cash inflow on sale of players £1.8m

Net cash outflow (£8m)

 

Total cash outflow for FY13 and FY14 = £12.7m. Apologies, I rounded it up to £13m

Do tell us who it was spent on...I can only think of Spearing and maybe Medo...

I understand the concept of cash flow thanks Eddie, what I don't understand is how you can, with a straight face, try to convince people that almost £16m went out of the club on player transfers in financial years 2013 and 2014. Are we playing monopoly all of a sudden?

Do tell us who it was spent on...I can only think of Spearing and maybe Medo...

 

I don't give a fuck who it was spent on, it was spent. It's in black and white in accounts audited by Deloitte, or are you now suggesting that they are incorrect/dodgy/part of any other fucking conspiracy too?

was it spent or was it the devaluation of the players?

 

i dunno, just a question

 

and thanks for the work

You don't give a fuck who it was spent on? Perhaps that's where we're going wrong - that people like you are prepared to accept this bullshit. All the time he was here (which was from autumn 2012) Freedman kept telling us we didn't have a pot to piss in and he was cutting our costs. We only got Spearing by loaning high earners out. And he was the only signing that I can remember that cost anything - maybe a million? So where's the other 15 gone?!

You don't give a fuck who it was spent on? Perhaps that's where we're going wrong - that people like you are prepared to accept this bullshit. All the time he was here (which was from autumn 2012) Freedman kept telling us we didn't have a pot to piss in and he was cutting our costs. We only got Spearing by loaning high earners out. And he was the only signing that I can remember that cost anything - maybe a million? So where's the other 15 gone?!

 

 

tell us what you think, instead of sly digs

 

post it nice and clear and i'll make sure it gets seen by anybody you accuse of being dodgy

 

then, ill get some popcorn

Thinly veiled I don't understand that outlay on players doesn't necessarily equate to transfer fees.

I've made it quite clear what I think. I don't think the figures stack up. At all. And that little sample of the accounts should raise questions in everyone's mind.

was it spent or was it the devaluation of the players?

 

i dunno, just a question

 

and thanks for the work

 

These figures are from the cash flow Casino, purely cash in, cash out.

 

If you start looking at the "profit/loss" on players then it gets complicated due to the amortisation and how you value them on the Balance Sheet, you can't really get a genuine cash profit without seeing the detailed working behind their values.

 

Just looking at the £150m cash loan figure that I got to:

 

Net cash on players = £60m

Reduction of external loans 2004 to 2014 = £25m

Cash spent on fixed assets = £18m

 

That leaves about £47m to cover our genuine cash losses over the years, which considering the amount of amortisation and other none cash 'losses' that go through the P&L, wouldn't seem too far out.

Thinly veiled I don't understand that outlay on players doesn't necessarily equate to transfer fees.

 

Ie Dawson juke baptiste loan/signing on fees etc

Edited August 26, 201510 yr by gonzo

 

Thinly veiled I don't understand that outlay on players doesn't necessarily equate to transfer fees.

 

Ie Dawson juke baptiste loan/signing on fees etc

 

No they signed for free.

But Carlos, we've only been bringing cheaper players in than those they've replaced over the past 3 years. The wage bill drop tells you that. Both Freedman and Lennon have made that plain. So even if that 'outflow' isn't just transfers it's still bollocks - we've been spending less on wages than we did before...so how can the net spend be £16m? It's nonsense.

I give up, ignore.

Are you accusing the club of falsifying accounts?

But Carlos, we've only been bringing cheaper players in than those they've replaced over the past 3 years. The wage bill drop tells you that. Both Freedman and Lennon have made that plain. So even if that 'outflow' isn't just transfers it's still bollocks - we've been spending less on wages than we did before...so how can the net spend be £16m? It's nonsense.

 

Out of interest.

 

Are you an accountant?

Do you have access to the financial data of Bolton Wanderers that goes into making the accounts from 2004 to 2014?

Baptiste was the year before...and if the Juke and Dawson's 3 month loans cost us £15m then PG is an even bigger financial incompetent than the accounts already say he is.

Baptiste was the year before...and if the Juke and Dawson's 3 month loans cost us £15m then PG is an even bigger financial incompetent than the accounts already say he is.

Why don't you go through the list of players freedman signed. Free,loan or whatever.

No I'm not...but anyone with a simple grasp of arithmetic can see those accounts don't add up.

There are more heads need wobbling if people think Freedman was given a £13 million warchest to spend on signings

You want to call HMRC big Dave. You are clearly on to something.