Can we not have anything debt related discussed in here please rather than every bastard thread turning into the same discussion??

Edited August 4, 201510 yr by gonzo

Eddie

 

Great post for me, thank you for simplifying complex accounts to the layman

 

A question; you quote partly in season, I.e. 2013-2014

 

However elsewhere by year, "in 2014..."

 

Can you clarify for the hard of thinking (as in me) that the latter means the same as the former; 2013-2014 for example?

 

Thanks again, and however it's interpreted....best post ever on this subject in my opinion

 

Cheers

Jules I think I understand your question. Basically wherever you read a year, I.e. 2014, what I am actually talking about is the financial year ending in that year, so more accurately FY14.

 

Also where I have written 2013-2014 in the some of the points at the bottom, that doesn't mean the 13/14 accounts (I.e just 1 set). It means the accounts ending in those years, so FY13 and FY14.

 

Does that answer your question? I tried to simplify it with just using years but realise it has the opposite effect in places.

http://m.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/13629649.Whites_confirm_funding_deal/

I still think both hold true actually - and not because I'm some crazy conspiracy theorist, or I just like disagreeing with people for the sake of it. Eddie's figures, far from proving all is absolutely fine, raise lots more questions for me - as I've tried to set out. On top of my earlier questions about why we, uniquely amongst clubs who've not done a Chelsea, City or QPR (ie spent millions and millions on multiple players), find ourselves £180m in debt. You disagree, and that's fine, this is a forum for people to share their views about the Wanderers - however much you might disagree with those views. But enough already.

NLSWA, COYW, Supera Moras.

http://m.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/13629649.Whites_confirm_funding_deal/

Can't be good news can it? Why can't the Bolton news ask some serious questions directly to Gartside? If chooses not to respond a nice front page lead asking questions surely couldn't be ignored by the club.

Edited August 27, 201510 yr by Mounts Kipper

Absolutely terrible news the club getting funding to ease cash flow. Fuck me mounts you have spent too much time in the sun

Absolutely terrible news the club getting funding to ease cash flow. Fuck me mounts you have spent too much time in the sun

Aye, not to worry. It'll just be to cover the £10 million a year in mystery transfer fees Davies gives the managers to spend every season

Where are they a mystery.

 

Did you not see the list of players we signed. They don't sign for free. Fuck me. These are audited accounts not some bullshit a pisscan is passing about

Spearing was reportedly £3million for a start

Absolutely terrible news the club getting funding to ease cash flow. Fuck me mounts you have spent too much time in the sun

I get that, unfortunately it's guaranteed against future income, that's bad, unless it's a stop gap until a deal to buy the club is in the pipeline. Funny how you just back Gartside blindly. I'm not a hater by the way just seems a little bit surreal that we can't meet our current commitments and are using future income to cover that shortfall, questions really do need to be asked, no doubt arrogance will mean there not answered.

Edited August 27, 201510 yr by Mounts Kipper

Also transfer fees are often staggered over the length of a contract so 2013 could include some from 2009, 2010 etc, and usually undisclosed so it won't just be necessarily that crop of players.

 

I wonder if it also includes signing on fees and 'loyalty' payments to players sold who haven't asked for a transfer.

Where are they a mystery.

 

Did you not see the list of players we signed. They don't sign for free. Fuck me. These are audited accounts not some bullshit a pisscan is passing about

See post 102. Even Eddie said he was guessing what the figure was comprised of

http://m.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/13629649.Whites_confirm_funding_deal/

Doesn't exactly sound good to me either, sounds like a Wonga deal.

 

I can see Lennon rocking up at a Glasgow Cash Converters next.

See post 102. Even Eddie said he was guessing what the figure was comprised of

Who is guessing?

 

See the list of players we signed during that period and compare it with other clubs expenditure for the same period.

 

Free signings aren't actually free you know.

 

£10 million is not a lot of money.

 

How is this so hard to understand??

 

You think the club are laundering money in the guise of made up outflow figures for incoming players?? That's as mental as thinking Paul McCartney died in 1973.

 

You should team up with Danny G and Paul Nicholls you fucking cranks.

Who is guessing?

 

See the list of players we signed during that period and compare it with other clubs expenditure for the same period.

 

Free signings aren't actually free you know.

 

£10 million is not a lot of money.

 

How is this so hard to understand??

 

You think the club are laundering money in the guise of made up outflow figures for incoming players?? That's as mental as thinking Paul McCartney died in 1973.

 

You should team up with Danny G and Paul Nicholls you fucking cranks.

 

Personally I think anyone who believes "big spender" Davies gave Freedman a £9.8 million transfer warchest for the 2013/14 season ought to be locked up in an asylum.

 

 

Jules I think I understand your question. Basically wherever you read a year, I.e. 2014, what I am actually talking about is the financial year ending in that year, so more accurately FY14.

 

Also where I have written 2013-2014 in the some of the points at the bottom, that doesn't mean the 13/14 accounts (I.e just 1 set). It means the accounts ending in those years, so FY13 and FY14.

 

Does that answer your question? I tried to simplify it with just using years but realise it has the opposite effect in places.

Yep

 

I was trying to ascertain under whose stewardship (Mgr) and therefore what conditions we "thought" we're in place and what results we had, for every year you put the simplified figures to.

 

Thanks again

I get that, unfortunately it's guaranteed against future income, that's bad, unless it's a stop gap until a deal to buy the club is in the pipeline. Funny how you just back Gartside blindly. I'm not a hater by the way just seems a little bit surreal that we can't meet our current commitments and are using future income to cover that shortfall, questions really do need to be asked, no doubt arrogance will mean there not answered.

How is accepting we have no cash flow and have to do these things following Gartside blindly. It's

Funny how whenever I am being a realist the same shit about following him blindly is mentioned. The tap has been turned off and so we are having to use different avenues.

 

Part of me hopes Eddie sells it to a crook who rips the club apart. Then there will be something to moan about

Personally I think anyone who believes "big spender" Davies gave Freedman a £9.8 million transfer warchest for the 2013/14 season ought to be locked up in an asylum.

 

 

That £9.8m probably includes installments for Coyle's lot and maybe even some of Megson's disasters, we had a back four costing reportedly the best part of £15 to £20m and that was before the expensive midfielder/striker, and remnants of fees from 2010 could have been paid in that season

Edited August 27, 201510 yr by ex_midlandwhite

I'm totally lost by this latest news. Burnden Leisure has secured a loan from a finance company, but doesn't Eddie and his many millions own Burden Leisure. I know he's trying to sell the club but why the loan. Can someone please explain in terms that someone who doesn't know a thing about company finances might understand.  

Why can't the Bolton news ask some serious questions directly to Gartside?

 

 

They're hardly Panorama!

I'm totally lost by this latest news. Burnden Leisure has secured a loan from a finance company, but doesn't Eddie and his many millions own Burden Leisure. I know he's trying to sell the club but why the loan. Can someone please explain in terms that someone who doesn't know a thing about company finances might understand.  

 

 

Borrowing to back Lenny?

Yes I think a statement from the club, (Gartside) is long overdue.

I'm totally lost by this latest news. Burnden Leisure has secured a loan from a finance company, but doesn't Eddie and his many millions own Burden Leisure. I know he's trying to sell the club but why the loan. Can someone please explain in terms that someone who doesn't know a thing about company finances might understand.

We need cash to pay some bills and wages. Eddie and Warburton presumably can't put the cash in (for Eddie it would be increasing debt to him further)

 

Therefore we have loaned it from this company (imagine not at 0%). If we don't pay it back they have the right to force sale of some assets that it is secured against as part of the terms of the deal

Also to pay back whatever overdraft we have as it seems the bank see too big a risk.

 

We already had used the parachute payment to back a previous loan Iles suggests in his article too

That £9.8m probably includes installments for Coyle's lot and maybe even some of Megson's disasters, we had a back four costing reportedly the best part of £15 to £20m and that was before the expensive midfielder/striker, and remnants of fees from 2010 could have been paid in that season

They are educated guesses that I can believe.The suggestion that Dougie spent £9.8 million during the 2013/14 season on mystery signing on fees for loan players from the 2nd Div and the like is ludicrous.

I'm totally lost by this latest news. Burnden Leisure has secured a loan from a finance company, but doesn't Eddie and his many millions own Burden Leisure. I know he's trying to sell the club but why the loan. Can someone please explain in terms that someone who doesn't know a thing about company finances might understand.

 

We had a loan facility already it was secured by the parachute payments. As these are now finished we have to secure the loan in another way. It is now covered by the value of land and the fact we have money coming in from TV deals.

 

Cost of a loan is based largely on the risk of you defaulting, so if secured interest rate drops. With parachute payments finishing we need to give security or the rate on the loan would go up.

 

It seems like a nothing story, but there be more behind it, it could maybe free up some capital or it might be a sign that the funds are drying up quicker than expected, but more likely a nothing story IMO. Companies do stuff like this all the time.

Edited August 27, 201510 yr by Ani