2 hours ago, Zog1 said:

My point was less about Lincoln and more about that even the weakest teams in the division, have what you'd probably describe as a team full of a mix of low end Championship and top end League 1 talent. As it is at the moment, we only have about 1/2 a team you'd put in that category, with huge gaps throughout the team. So we have to sign BOTH better quality than we had AND increase the number, other teams around us just have to increase the quality.

If we're talking a bottom 4 budget that's at worse £1M at best £4M, your top end League 1 player now costs a £1M, so we're raiding the freebies again, or getting in loans. It's frustrating because this business model only works if we're reselling, and these loans risk just sucking us dry like Oxford, taking up room and wage budget to develop other team's players.

Will we miss out on our own Morgan Rogers bought by Boro for £1.5M and resold next season to Villa for £8M rising to 15M, because we loaned next years equivalent of Forss.

Fwiw in your first paragraph you simply restate my analysis of 2nd June (page 1878 if anyone is interested).

As for taking loans rather than being unable to buy players I'm afraid your logic is wrong, as even if we had a massive transfer budget we still could not buy them and will still have to recruit loans instead.

The reason being we are limited to a maximum of spend of 85% of revenue on players wages AND transfers paid.

In the last published accounts players wages were 98.8% of revenue, we therefore firstly have to manage the wages down to the 85% mark and for every £1m we spend on a transfer fee, we will have to reduce the wages down a further £1m to still comply with this rule.

We can't go any lower than the total amount of wages we are legally required to pay as per the remaining players contracts

Therefore if we need Championship quality players and we can't reduce the wage bill of players already here on contracts (or sell Randall or anyone else for a million or two) then the only way to achieve that is through loans (or bring through the our next Conway from the reserve team).

Maybe some of this seasons loans may include agreement to buy at the end of the twelve months as an inducement to the player and their club he is being loaned from perhaps but the point is we will have to bring loans in whether we want to or not, if we are to comply with the new rules.

Not sure how you got to that conclusion at all.

Players' wages aren't 98% of revenue; our revenue will go up probably 15M next season (this is before player trading and plumb cup draws) and it's been mentioned they're looking at driving down operating costs. Also I may be wrong here but I don't think loan players count towards wages as the parent club still pay them.

Edited June 28Jun 28 by jmjhb

2 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Not sure how you got to that conclusion at all.

Which conclusion?

If you mean about you being confident, well you do seem confident that FV will slash a last reported trading loss of £14.3m down to a loss that it was making as a play off level club in League 1 whilst putting together a squad to survive in the Championship, with existing contracted players whose wages amounted to 98.8% of revenue remain on the payroll (ok some have since left but others have been singed to replace them) - and who knows what pay rises they may have had as conditions in their contracts.

Ok FV will receive £12m more income from being in the Championship but I suggest most of that will be put towards the increased wages paid in the Championship (maybe even fund the the reported £4m transfer budget that (you?) reported in lieu of FV putting in more equity until later into the season).

I'm just not as confident as how you seem to be that they will achieve it all in their first season back.

If you mean about the need to recruit loanees, what part of my analysis isn't clear to you?

7 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Don't be too quick to think that.

There's two sides to this equation, how much a clubs revenue is, is one as you rightly say the other is the required funding of the clubs trading debt and that's confined within a cap of new equity (investment) into the company.

In Lincoln's last accounts they had a loss of just under £3m compared to our loss of £14m, their income was £8m ours £17m.

Meaning Lincoln could spend roughly £7m on a squad (85%) whilst we could spend a whooping £14.5m - so yes, we should be twice as good as Lincoln on that basis but it isn't that simple when you take the trading losses into account.

If both clubs put in the maximum £15m they are allowed to this coming season and both had the same trading losses as they last reported, then Lincoln would have £15m less £3m set aside to cover their loss and have £12m to spend on the squad (although in their case they are only permitted to spend up to £7m of it) .

We on the other hand would have £15m less £14m set aside to cover our trading loss and just have a pitiful £1m to build our squad with.

Are you still convinced that Lincoln are fucked?

Of course Lincoln owners might not have £15m to invest (or even the £10m required in the sum above) but what I'm saying is things aren't as black and white as people may think - big clubs seem to have bigger trading deficits than small clubs and in the example above, Lincoln would be the clear winners over us in having substantially more money to build their squad with than we would.

Lincoln City accounts 2024/25 | Lincoln City Football Club

Let’s see if Lincoln spend more money than we do shall we.

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Let’s see if Lincoln spend more money than we do shall we.

It's not exactly if they spend more money or not than us, what I was explaining (or trying to) is that they may well have the greater opportunity to do so.

Whoever spends the most money will obviously depend on the finical position we both find ourselves in, both now and planning for the future - both clubs will need long term investment commitments, and neither trade at a profit.

Trading at a loss of £3m simply has a much less drag on financial flexibility than trading at a loss of £14.3m obviously.

Fwiw I hope Lincoln and ourselves both do stay up.

Edited June 28Jun 28 by Sluffy

40 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Let’s see if Lincoln spend more money than we do shall we.

The point isn't that they'll spend more or less than us, it's that our money is being split, due to us not only having to improve, but to fill entire positions like right wing, that requires a starter and a backup. If you already have the backup then the spending you do, can be focused on the improvement.

32 minutes ago, Zog1 said:

The point isn't that they'll spend more or less than us, it's that our money is being split, due to us not only having to improve, but to fill entire positions like right wing, that requires a starter and a backup. If you already have the backup then the spending you do, can be focused on the improvement.

Yeah, I agree

We need quality and numbers and are seemingly heavily restricted on what we can do

I'm hoping I've either misread or we have a trick up our sleeve

34 minutes ago, Zog1 said:

The point isn't that they'll spend more or less than us, it's that our money is being split, due to us not only having to improve, but to fill entire positions like right wing, that requires a starter and a backup. If you already have the backup then the spending you do, can be focused on the improvement.

Lincoln were functional rather than inspirational, and that’s at league one level, many of their players ain’t gonna cut it and even worse the mastermind behind it has left.

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Lincoln were functional rather than inspirational, and that’s at league one level, many of their players ain’t gonna cut it and even worse the mastermind behind it has left.

They're run fairly conservatively too; I think their transfer record is 350K? Whilst they'll almost certainly break that I don't think it'll be huge spend unless they sell Moylan (unlikely this season).

None of us would have had Lincoln running away with the league.

Bit unfair to suggest they don't necessarily have players that are up to it.

We really don't know until they start-same with us.

I agree that Lincoln’s biggest problem may be the loss of the manager, and and player losses.

It would be very difficult to maintain that form; few runaway winners do, but they shouldn't be discounted yet.

I tend to agree though, that I'd fancy us to finish higher.

For those following Lincoln's activities

12 hours ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Skubala has left they will be relegated.

12 hours ago, Zico said:

dunno

Lincoln did well last season

but I'd like to think we're in a better position than them with regards putting a squad capable of competing in the championship

good luck to them, I hope they stay up at the expense of established championship clubs

Still pure speculation. If anyone had told you they would have pissed the league last season you would have ( as would I) ssid they had no chance. We dont even know who 75% of our squad will be next season yet ffs.

4 minutes ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

Still pure speculation. If anyone had told you they would have pissed the league last season you would have ( as would I) ssid they had no chance. We dont even know who 75% of our squad will be next season yet ffs.

It’ll be better than Lincoln’s… guaranteed.

1 hour ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

Still pure speculation. If anyone had told you they would have pissed the league last season you would have ( as would I) ssid they had no chance. We dont even know who 75% of our squad will be next season yet ffs.

aye, of course it's pure speculation / an opinion / a guess

no one knows where anyone will finish

bookies seem to have Lincoln as favourites for relegation though

Leeds, Hull, West Ham and Freiburg all interested in ACD according to The Sun online. No mention of interest from us.

I've read that Dan Scarr at Wrexham could be available, might be worth a punt if we're looking for another big central defender.

Preparing the fans for the "we'll go with what we've got" statement.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/26233945.bolton-wanderers-boss-discusses-approach-recruitment/

💣

I trust Fergal and the process, but it's now nearly been 3 weeks since our last signing and squad turnover is quite substantial.

With 6 first team players released/sold (Johnno, Dempsey, Tutu, Sharples-Ahmed, Schon & Gomes) and the 7 loans leaving. If we also consider that most likely Randall & Taylor will be sold as well.

That makes roughly 15 players all who have left our squad this summer. That is mental.

We've signed 2 so far and Warren & Inwood have returned but are likely to be loaned out again.

So I make that we need at least roughly 12 signings just to have the same numbers as last season.

Pre season starts in less than a week and we fly out to Slovakia in about 2 weeks.

We've got a serious amount of business to do.

Edited June 29Jun 29 by Lostock Whites

We’ve been linked to interest in Danny Batth. Centre back from Derby.

4 hours ago, frank_spencer said:

Preparing the fans for the "we'll go with what we've got" statement.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/26233945.bolton-wanderers-boss-discusses-approach-recruitment/

💣

I heard the longer interview on the clubs podcast that it’s taken from and he talks about how athletic the championship players are quicker and stronger and it took him by surprise last time at argyle and mentioned about the World Cup and some of the smaller nations like Cape Verde and Haiti and the players there with and how capable they look .

Which is great that he recognises the game as moved on and the make up of the players you need to be recruiting when you move up levels .

There are plenty of skill full players from the past who wouldn’t get a look in at the top level these days you need to be a athlete first and foremost

Not really worried just yet about only two signings. In some ways there is encouragement because better signings are usually the more difficult to sort.

We are 36 days on since Wembley, there are 46 days until the league season starts. We're not quite half way through summer therefore.

With pre-season training only a week away we could certainly do with seeing some action over the next fortnight now. However with the high number of additions that we need I expect there will be a "purple patch" at some point in July where we sign three in a week and suddenly things will look far more in shape.

21 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

Not really worried just yet about only two signings. In some ways there is encouragement because better signings are usually the more difficult to sort.

We are 36 days on since Wembley, there are 46 days until the league season starts. We're not quite half way through summer therefore.

With pre-season training only a week away we could certainly do with seeing some action over the next fortnight now. However with the high number of additions that we need I expect there will be a "purple patch" at some point in July where we sign three in a week and suddenly things will look far more in shape.

Anyway, we all played 7 a side, or 6 a side, first to 10 or flying keepers in our time.

Those early training sessions will be fine.

So much for the 4 or 5 deals ready to go then. We’ve had two I suppose both of which would probably have been made if we’d stayed in L1 so what’s happening with the Championship plan Fergie supposedly had? With our players not back until next week following our play off delay we’re already behind so hopefully things will pick up before the weekend. It’s all getting a little tedious at the moment so I’m hoping ducks are lining up in a row behind the scenes.

I don't see us having signed either had we remained in league one.