Article in Sunday Express saying takeover imminent.....

BWFC could have gone out of business either this week or in a fortnights time without the SS takeover so at worse we at least have the club until the end of the season but with a chance that Deano has discovered a magic formula to turn our finances around!  Surely its better to run with this than not having the club exist?

 

If in 6-12 months time its been a failure, are we really any worse off than at the start of this week? 

I agree, I also like his "Up the Trotters" comment after the deal was done, I'm hoping some of the magic dust has rubbed off the legends who were about at the time Deano was playing for us in sure he'd have spent time in the company of Nat, Roy Hartle and the like and he was also a part of a team that included Mcginlay, Gudni, all who played their hearts out for the club.

"up the Trotters"

 

was the last thing Gudni shouted in the tunnel before leading the team out.

 

That's probably where he's got it from.

Can you stop saying Eddies lost 170 million all the world knows thats bollocks.

No Mounts, you have an opinion that it is bollocks, however you have delivered your opinion as fact time and time again.

 

I'm not going in to it again and it's fair enough that you have your opinion, but unless you can produce some facts that counter what the accounts say (the only facts we have), without using phrases like 'accounts are bollocks' 'accounts are manipulated' which in itself is a bollocks statement, then your opinion is only that.

No Mounts, you have an opinion that it is bollocks, however you have delivered your opinion as fact time and time again.

 

I'm not going in to it again and it's fair enough that you have your opinion, but unless you can produce some facts that counter what the accounts say (the only facts we have), without using phrases like 'accounts are bollocks' 'accounts are manipulated' which in itself is a bollocks statement, then your opinion is only that.

The audited accounts are the most reliable source of information but not, in this case, the only one. Corroboration can be found on the website of 'the offshore game'.

In a report published in January this year it reported that the Fildraw Private Trust (beneficial owner of Bolton) 'lost £19m in 2014 and a huge £124m in 2013'. These figures are consistent with the company writing down an investment of £173m to the £30m Eddie hoped to get from selling the club.

Here's the link

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi95Zaa27jLAhVGNhoKHdoEA7UQjBAIJDAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theoffshoregame.net%2Fboltons-moonshift%2F&usg=AFQjCNGCj5fxqCiyMCbmAKtsWk5mR8nJdA&sig2=_RbIw-wHaBTJLlyQyqqG0g

Edited March 11, 201610 yr by GudniB

Corroboration can be found on the website of 'the offshore game'.

 

 

That's a website I am always a bit suspicious off for some reason - I don't get what they are all about and what their agenda is......and why

That's a website I am always a bit suspicious off for some reason - I don't get what they are all about and what their agenda is......and why

You are right to be cautious. There is often an agenda that slants the facts but you can sometimes pick up snippets that make sense (as well as those that don't).

I wouldn't swallow everything in that article. Way too much was made of the Bermuda, BVI links but the writing down of the Fildraw investment is very specific and makes absolute sense

Edited March 11, 201610 yr by GudniB

No Mounts, you have an opinion that it is bollocks, however you have delivered your opinion as fact time and time again.

 

I'm not going in to it again and it's fair enough that you have your opinion, but unless you can produce some facts that counter what the accounts say (the only facts we have), without using phrases like 'accounts are bollocks' 'accounts are manipulated' which in itself is a bollocks statement, then your opinion is only that.

A good starting point is that Eddie has never had 170 million to lose. We can't substantiate anything from the accounts other than Eddie has lost a good lump of money and that's not in doubt however we know he's never been worth 170 million so how come you think he's lost that amount of money?

A good starting point is that Eddie has never had 170 million to lose. We can't substantiate anything from the accounts other than Eddie has lost a good lump of money and that's not in doubt however we know he's never been worth 170 million so how come you think he's lost that amount of money?

Out of curiosity, how do you know he's never had £170m.

We know how much he was paid for his shares in Strix, and the Times 'estimated' his fortune at £100m, but we dont know what investments he has made in the meantime, or how his financial staus has changed.

He could have £2.67 in his bank, or he could have £700m in his account, thats speculation.

 

No matter how much money he has pumped in, he has lost out on the £170m owed to him. Even if he had already been paid £290 trillion by the club, he was owed £170m and has lost that. Thats fact.

You are right to be cautious. There is often an agenda that slants the facts but you can sometimes pick up snippets that make sense (as well as those that don't).

I wouldn't swallow everything in that article. Way too much was made of the Bermuda, BVI links but the writing down of the Fildraw investment is very specific and makes absolute sense

 

Surely there you are just taking what you like from a source, deciding it is reliable, yet the stuff you don't like just dismissing it?

Either a source is reliable or not. You can't pick and choose.

Bolton fans. It has ever been this way. Folk that thrive on negativity and can't wait for things to fuck up just so they can say 'I told you so'.

 

Not me. We nearly ceased to exist so any sort of a new dawn is to be celebrated.

 

I have dug up my old TonyCee filter and put it on charge. Not absorbing any negative shit.

 

COYFWM.

He might have been earning a few million a year from other business ventures.

 

Just because he never had £170million in the bank all at once doesn't mean he can't have spent that much over several years.

 

Fwiw I doubt he's £170 million out of pocket.

Lines have been drawn

 

 

There are those who think ED is a cunt, there are those who think there are mitigating circumstances.

 

As has been said many times, it's where you're at - right now, we are alive and kicking with a new regime so probably best to move on.

 

Peace and love peace and love peace and love

Out of curiosity, how do you know he's never had £170m.

We know how much he was paid for his shares in Strix, and the Times 'estimated' his fortune at £100m, but we dont know what investments he has made in the meantime, or how his financial staus has changed.

He could have £2.67 in his bank, or he could have £700m in his account, thats speculation.

 

No matter how much money he has pumped in, he has lost out on the £170m owed to him. Even if he had already been paid £290 trillion by the club, he was owed £170m and has lost that. Thats fact.

You can't lose what you never had. ????

Bolton fans. It has ever been this way. Folk that thrive on negativity and can't wait for things to fuck up just so they can say 'I told you so'.

 

 

Let's be honest, this isn't just Bolton fans - it's all football fans.

You can't lose what you never had.

 

If it costs £200k to bring a child up, you can bring up 3 kids without ever having £600K, or even £100k. JSL

You can't lose what you never had.

I would hope that if I sold my house today, I would get market value rather than the amount I originally paid. (an amount, btw, that I have never had at a single point in time).

Would I be  right in thinking that you (bwfcfan5) have never been responsible for any investigation? That's precisely what you do. You gather together all the information and evidence, assess it, seek to corroborate it and discard that that's unreliable or biased. Whilst I have been looking into all this I have found unreliable information from otherwise reliable sources and reliable information from otherwise suspect ones. Sometimes people set out to mislead, sometimes they are just mistaken. You have  to apply sensible discretion to get to the truth.

Edited March 11, 201610 yr by GudniB

You can't lose what you never had.

Do you accept that Eddie Davies sold shares to the value of £100m in 2005?

Do you accept that, if the value of Strix was then £300m, the value of the 5% he didn't sell were worth about £15m?

If you do, we have got to £115m of the £150m he loaned the club from 2008 onwards. (He bought the shares btw between 1999 and 2003)

Do you think that ED stuck under the bed the £100m he got in 2005 or do you think he might have invested it?

Do you think he might just have invested this money more profitably than the money he 'invested' in BWFC?

Are we getting anywhere?

Would I be  right in thinking that you (bwfcfan5) have never been responsible for any investigation? That's precisely what you do. You gather together all the information and evidence, assess it, seek to corroborate it and discard that that's unreliable or biased. Whilst I have been looking into all this I have found unreliable information from otherwise reliable sources and reliable information from otherwise suspect ones. Sometimes people set out to mislead, sometimes they are just mistaken. You have  to apply sensible discretion to get to the truth.

Can you get a figure for club income from the Prem League / Sky tv for our 11 years in the Prem ?

I'm curious.

Would I be right in thinking that you (bwfcfan5) have never been responsible for any investigation? That's precisely what you do. You gather together all the information and evidence, assess it, seek to corroborate it and discard that that's unreliable or biased. Whilst I have been looking into all this I have found unreliable information from otherwise reliable sources and reliable information from otherwise suspect ones. Sometimes people set out to mislead, sometimes they are just mistaken. You have to apply sensible discretion to get to the truth.

That is what you do. But you would have to show me the basis by which you have decided to throw certain information out but to keep other information.

 

Currently your argument isn't far off how the Nazis decided what was and what wasn't approved literature.

That is what you do. But you would have to show me the basis by which you have decided to throw certain information out but to keep other information.

 

Currently your argument isn't far off how the Nazis decided what was and what wasn't approved literature.

Isn't saying that's what the nazis did a sign that you've lost an argument?

Do you accept that Eddie Davies sold shares to the value of £100m in 2005?

Do you accept that, if the value of Strix was then £300m, the value of the 5% he didn't sell were worth about £15m?

If you do, we have got to £115m of the £150m he loaned the club from 2008 onwards. (He bought the shares btw between 1999 and 2003)

Do you think that ED stuck under the bed the £100m he got in 2005 or do you think he might have invested it?

Do you think he might just have invested this money more profitably than the money he 'invested' in BWFC?

Are we getting anywhere?

 

 

A lot of guesswork in there, my guess is he lost less than 160 million your guess is that he lost that amount. I think you are looking at the accounts and taking them literally, I am looking at Eddie who has made a small fortune and thinking he is not that stupid to lose 160 million and that he is clever enough to use BWFC in a legal way to reduce his tax liability. Other than that lets agree to disagree.    

Yawn

 

Can't we all be friends now?

I can give you broadcasting income figures for the ten years to 2013/14:

They are:

Premiership     to 2011/12        £276.6m   - 8 years (Highest £44.7m 2010/11, lowest £25.9m 2006/07)

Championship to 2013/14        £  41.1m   - 2 years (parachute money)

 

Total gate receipts over the ten years were £63.6m( Highest £9.8m 2005/06, lowest £3.4m 2013/14)

Total wages costs were £390.4m.(% spent on wages increased every year until 2013/14)

Acquisition of players was £110m (including agents fees)

 

Can you get a figure for club income from the Prem League / Sky tv for our 11 years in the Prem ?
I'm curious.

 

Isn't saying that's what the nazis did a sign that you've lost an argument?

 

did you know, there's this "Godwin's Law" which states (and it's probably right) that:

 

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" — ​​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

 

and here we are, on page 223

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law