now, accepting that the figure for us is false cos we just make it up

 

theres some interesting numbers on this link

 

a few clubs, inc us have a distorted figure cos of parachute payments, but fook me, its unbelievable we've hot got a queue of potential buyers

 

http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/146216-championship-club-club

 

'even' brighton

 

turnover 25 million!

 

reading - 30 excl parachutes

 

charlton - 13

 

 

without parachutes, i reckon we're nearer 6 or 7

Edited November 4, 201510 yr by Casino

Some of those wage amounts are staggeringly low - there is hope

i was looking at how to get horseshit into a sentence

 

theres many reasons why we wont be going into administration

 

not least that we can cover our debts

I would have absolutely agreed 100% last year. Now we know we have debt to companies like Nucleus it has become a slight concern, especially as turnover takes a huge hit again next year.

My favourite people

 

Are the ones who moan about turnover being shit

 

That we're not doing enough to bring money through the door

 

Then say "I'm not going watching that shower of shit"

 

I like those people the most because they are very bright.

Same people but they ask if there's any cheap spares going. Fuck off.

Out of interest anyone ITK on how much Rok Mobile paid for the privilege of putting their names on our shirts, and has anyone on here started to use it ?

Out of interest anyone ITK on how much Rok Mobile paid for the privilege of putting their names on our shirts, and has anyone on here started to use it ?

Probably not public ally available but if I was a guessing man my guess would be more than Fibrelec but less than quickquid were going to

Probably not public ally available but if I was a guessing man my guess would be more than Fibrelec but less than quickquid were going to

Fuck Quickquid, the people won a moral victory!!!

Fuck Quickquid, the people won a moral victory!!!

And then the club had to flog a part of the car park to pay the bills

an old article but one thats worth a re visit

 

lots of good stuff and it would be nice to see an updated effort

 

 

 

2003, the co op wanting its money back

 

 

gate receipts dropping from 10 to 6 million while we were in the top league

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/why-bolton-have-so-much-debt.html

an old article but one thats worth a re visit

 

lots of good stuff and it would be nice to see an updated effort

 

 

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/why-bolton-have-so-much-debt.html

Very interesting read

 

"Actually, Davies has not exactly “given” the money to the club, as Bolton have to pay a price for his generosity. Last year, his company was paid £3.6 million in respect of “arrangement and guarantee fees” for the £85 million loan, which is linked to an interest rate of 5%"

 "In fairness, these terms are an improvement on the previous year, when the interest rate was a very high 10% on a £23 million loan, which produced a £2m payment to Davies."

The loan is also secured by a floating charge on the club’s assets, while Moonshift is owed a further £2.7 million by the club for what is mysteriously described as a “player success fee”.

In short, it is clear that Davies’ funding has been vitally important to the club, but it is equally clear that this is a commercial investment that has provided the owner with a healthy income stream during a difficult economic climate. The club’s chief executive, Allan Duckworth, acknowledged that the owners’ loans charged interest “at a premium which reflects risk, which is high at a football club.” As a result, the club has been paying £4.5 million a year in interest, which is not massive, but it is a sizeable burden when the turnover is only around £60 million.

an old article but one thats worth a re visit

 

lots of good stuff and it would be nice to see an updated effort

 

 

 

2003, the co op wanting its money back

 

 

gate receipts dropping from 10 to 6 million while we were in the top league

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/why-bolton-have-so-much-debt.html

 

Nothing explains the massive increase in our debt while we were in the Premier league, surely budgets were in place each season, even the 4 million reduction in gate money wouldn't have made a big difference to the overall debt or losses, anyhow Eddies had a chunk of money back and he won't starve, hopefully he can sell the club and wipe the debt so we can start moving forward again.

Nothing explains the massive increase in our debt while we were in the Premier league, surely budgets were in place each season, even the 4 million reduction in gate money wouldn't have made a big difference to the overall debt or losses, anyhow Eddies had a chunk of money back and he won't starve, hopefully he can sell the club and wipe the debt so we can start moving forward again.

Wages?

 

At that time we had 2 or 3 squads of players. When cup came round we'd roll out the likes of dzemalli and borgetti

who would be on decent money.

 

Plus we didn't have the huge wonder kid sale that the likes of Everton, Wigan and Blackburn have had.

Nothing explains the massive increase in our debt while we were in the Premier league, surely budgets were in place each season, even the 4 million reduction in gate money wouldn't have made a big difference to the overall debt or losses, anyhow Eddies had a chunk of money back and he won't starve, hopefully he can sell the club and wipe the debt so we can start moving forward again.

 

 

apart from the things that do

 

like this

 

 

and this

 

 

and this

 

 

 

how much do you need to see

 

yes, its an utterly bollocks business model but ffs, we all knew what was going on

apart from the things that do

 

like this

 

 

and this

 

 

and this

 

 

 

how much do you need to see

 

yes, its an utterly bollocks business model but ffs, we all knew what was going on

 

 

So over that period we had a nett spend of 12 million on transfer fees, we had more income than our wages at 86% of income (Wigan had 91% of income spent on wages their not in the shit financially and currently outspend Bolton), our income actually grew from 44.5 million to 54 million, all seems O.K. and do not hint at a problem on the scale that we currently have, now can anyone explain what the OTHER EXPENSES on the balance sheet are that stack up to 143.6 million?  If thats Eddies interest and other little benefits then a large part of the debt is  fabrication, if its something else then I would like to know what it is. Can anyone shed any light on that? 

Edited November 17, 201510 yr by Mounts Kipper

 

Edited November 17, 201510 yr by Mounts Kipper

"Other Expenses" is the woolly bit, and the fastest growing as well, looking at the above. I presume this includes the hotel purchase, but not sure what else falls into it

Very interesting read

 

"Actually, Davies has not exactly “given” the money to the club, as Bolton have to pay a price for his generosity. Last year, his company was paid £3.6 million in respect of “arrangement and guarantee fees” for the £85 million loan, which is linked to an interest rate of 5%"

 "In fairness, these terms are an improvement on the previous year, when the interest rate was a very high 10% on a £23 million loan, which produced a £2m payment to Davies."

The loan is also secured by a floating charge on the club’s assets, while Moonshift is owed a further £2.7 million by the club for what is mysteriously described as a “player success fee”.

In short, it is clear that Davies’ funding has been vitally important to the club, but it is equally clear that this is a commercial investment that has provided the owner with a healthy income stream during a difficult economic climate. The club’s chief executive, Allan Duckworth, acknowledged that the owners’ loans charged interest “at a premium which reflects risk, which is high at a football club.” As a result, the club has been paying £4.5 million a year in interest, which is not massive, but it is a sizeable burden when the turnover is only around £60 million.

 

It is slightly misleading though. How can you pay interest to somebody who each year for the past 8 has lent us money to cover the difference between what we have received and what has to be paid out?

 

Say in year 1 ED lent us £10m and put an interest rate of 10% on it.

 

In year 2 we then 'lost' £10m. (I'm not talking loss after tax I mean literally the difference between the cash we had in and the cash we needed to pay out).

ED again covered that shortfall.

£1m of the £10m relates to the interest owed to ED for the previous years loan. Do you honestly think we have paid Moonshift £1m interest one day, only for them to then give it us back, plus another £9m to cover the current year loss the next? Or would they just say, we'll give you £9m and just add the interest that you owe us to the loan? Even if we did for some reason do it the 1st way, which makes no sense, Moonshift aren't keeping that interest, it just has to come straight back to us, with more.

 

For as long as ED's loan is the balancing amount between the cash we receive and the cash we have paid out each year he can't be paid the interest back (well he can but he just has to give it us back in terms of a bigger loan as that year our cash outflow is even greater).

 

Basically the interest has just been adding to the loan. From when I looked at all the accounts I worked out that the interest since he started loaning us money is about £26m, this makes up part of the loan which mean the actual cash amount of the loan is £150m.

 

150m  cash

26m    interest

176m  total

 

What the guy that wrote that article probably didn't realise when he was doing it was that ED will never get that loan back. If Bolton sold Clough this Jan for £200m and we suddenly paid back ED the full £176m then it becomes a good investment for him, he's made £26m interest off a £150m loan, however he isn't getting it back, at some point it will be written off because we can't afford to pay it. Not only will he not get any of this interest that people get so hung up on, but he will also not get any of the £150m cash that Moonshift have lent us back either.

 

He could have charged 50% interest, all that would have happened is the amount owed now would be bigger, but it would just be more interest that is owed, more interest that will never be paid back. The cash amount would still be the same, there is c.£150m that ED has given to BWFC in terms of a 'loan' that he will never get back.

Edited November 17, 201510 yr by Eddie

So over that period we had a nett spend of 12 million on transfer fees, we had more income than our wages at 86% of income (Wigan had 91% of income spent on wages their not in the shit financially and currently outspend Bolton), our income actually grew from 44.5 million to 54 million, all seems O.K. and do not hint at a problem on the scale that we currently have, now can anyone explain what the OTHER EXPENSES on the balance sheet are that stack up to 143.6 million?  If thats Eddies interest and other little benefits then a large part of the debt is  fabrication, if its something else then I would like to know what it is. Can anyone shed any light on that? 

 

Mounts I'm not sure what you mean by Other Expenses of £143.6m on the Balance Sheet?

 

I think what you have done is added each of the 'Other Expense' lines up in each years P&L and come to that number? (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

What the guy that has pulled that analysis together has done is split out certain costs each year, these are 3 categories that he considers important for his analysis, with all the rest of the costs being grouped into 'other':

- Wages and salaries - Which is exactly what it is, wages and salaries of all employees for the year, the vast majority of which is obviously players.

 

- Player amortisation - Each player will be classed as an Intangible asset on the Balance Sheet (intangible as the asset relates to his contract). Say he is valued at £10m and he has 4 years on his contract, each year his value will reduce by £2.5m (usually) and there will be the subsequent 'expense' to the Profit and Loss for that £2.5m. This is a non-cash expense which really doesn't mean a great deal in the real world other than for the accounting.

 

- Impairment of player values - Very similar to player amortisation. It is basically just additional amortisation that is due to an event that has happened. Say we had a player on the Balance Sheet at the end of the year at a value of £10m, but we got relegated and therefore we couldn't demand £10m any more, we then impair the value of that player down to what we now consider to be the amount we could actually get for him. If that was now only £6m then the impairment charge taken to the Profit and Loss would be the difference of £4m. Again it's a non-cash 'expense'. This is what massively increased our loss after getting relegated, I think it was about a £25m impairment that we took.

 

- Other Expenses is every other expense we had, to an Operating Profit level. Just looking at the 2010 amount of £31.1m there are a few big costs that can be picked out.

   - Player trading - £15.9m (loss on disposal of player registrations)

   - Restructuring costs - £4.2m (usually relates to redundancies and other related costs)

   - Depreciation - £2m (Although he has split the player amortisation out above, he has put the asset depreciation for things like the stadium etc in here)

 

The increase year to year is mainly due to the player trading amount being included in there as it is likely to change a lot year on year. There is a £7.3m increase from '09 to '10. In '09 player trading was £12.5m (£3.4m lower than '10) and there was no restructuring costs. That's a £7.8m increase in just those 2 lines.

Mounts I'm not sure what you mean by Other Expenses of £143.6m on the Balance Sheet?

 

I think what you have done is added each of the 'Other Expense' lines up in each years P&L and come to that number? (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

What the guy that has pulled that analysis together has done is split out certain costs each year, these are 3 categories that he considers important for his analysis, with all the rest of the costs being grouped into 'other':

- Wages and salaries - Which is exactly what it is, wages and salaries of all employees for the year, the vast majority of which is obviously players.

 

- Player amortisation - Each player will be classed as an Intangible asset on the Balance Sheet (intangible as the asset relates to his contract). Say he is valued at £10m and he has 4 years on his contract, each year his value will reduce by £2.5m (usually) and there will be the subsequent 'expense' to the Profit and Loss for that £2.5m. This is a non-cash expense which really doesn't mean a great deal in the real world other than for the accounting.

 

- Impairment of player values - Very similar to player amortisation. It is basically just additional amortisation that is due to an event that has happened. Say we had a player on the Balance Sheet at the end of the year at a value of £10m, but we got relegated and therefore we couldn't demand £10m any more, we then impair the value of that player down to what we now consider to be the amount we could actually get for him. If that was now only £6m then the impairment charge taken to the Profit and Loss would be the difference of £4m. Again it's a non-cash 'expense'. This is what massively increased our loss after getting relegated, I think it was about a £25m impairment that we took.

 

- Other Expenses is every other expense we had, to an Operating Profit level. Just looking at the 2010 amount of £31.1m there are a few big costs that can be picked out.

   - Player trading - £15.9m (loss on disposal of player registrations)

   - Restructuring costs - £4.2m (usually relates to redundancies and other related costs)

   - Depreciation - £2m (Although he has split the player amortisation out above, he has put the asset depreciation for things like the stadium etc in here)

 

The increase year to year is mainly due to the player trading amount being included in there as it is likely to change a lot year on year. There is a £7.3m increase from '09 to '10. In '09 player trading was £12.5m (£3.4m lower than '10) and there was no restructuring costs. That's a £7.8m increase in just those 2 lines.

 

 

on the 3rd diagram (profit and loss) there is a column headed up OTHER EXPENSES this shows a 143.6 million loss over that period anyhow these figures and the accounts are not worth the paper they are written on, the fact of the matter is E.D. is still a wealthy man and has not tossed off his wealth on BWFC and because of the smoke and mirrors that have been employed by Gartside and E.D. we will never know the amount of money that he actually put into the club.

Edited November 17, 201510 yr by Mounts Kipper

on the 3rd diagram (profit and loss) there is a column headed up OTHER EXPENSES this shows a 143.6 million loss over that period anyhow these figures and the accounts are not worth the paper they are written on, the fact of the matter is E.D. is still a wealthy man and has not tossed off his wealth on BWFC and because of the smoke and mirrors that have been employed by Gartside and E.D. we will never know the amount of money that he actually put into the club.

 

Well that was a waste of 10 minutes

No it wasn't Eddie. Thanks once again.

Well that was a waste of 10 minutes

 

It wasn't, I got it

Well that was a waste of 10 minutes

Apologies, I'm trying to follow this on the hoof and just glanced at your initial response, now I have read your reply can I ask a thicko question, we had a nett transfer spend of 12 million in that period yet the write downs or amortization seems to amount to over 100 million, the transfer fees were originally accounted for and wages were paid to players and were in the accounts each year, It seems we wrote down the transfer and wages over a period of the contract and simply put than in the accounts as other expenses, am I correct in this assumption?

Edited November 17, 201510 yr by Mounts Kipper

Eddie

You don't seriously believe Eddie Davies has given BWFC £150 million as a gift and yet in addition to the TV income and player sales, all that money has been spent so badly we have ended up with this pile of shite representing the club on a Saturday afternoon?

If you do, i worry for you.

Eddie

 

You don't seriously believe Eddie Davies has given BWFC £150 million as a gift and yet in addition to the TV income and player sales, all that money has been spent so badly we have ended up with this pile of shite representing the club on a Saturday afternoon?

 

If you do, i worry for you.

 

I don't think Eddie is saying believes that, but that that's what the accounts say. Maybe you can spend some of your valuable time interpreting the data in there, clearly from consistent comments on this subject you consider your understanding to be on some kind of superior level to the rest of us.