Pies in administration

[BWFC_Insane]

That very rule has just been triggered.

They've been placed under a transfer embargo.

So, assuming appeals are unsuccessful, they can only sign freebies until January 2025. Marvellous.

That’s them out of the Rice race then.

[BWFC_Insane]

Let’s get this straight. Wigan we’re celebrating selling 4000 season tickets. We’ve sold 15,000 as a league one club. And we’d sell more if we went up and they didn’t up prices too much.

There is no comparison between us and Wigan.

I didn't compare us to Wigan.

I know - I wanted to get it straight before one of the usuals did!

[GhostoftheBok]

This might be my favourite tweet ever. Won't somebody petition the king!?

[officer_dibble]

WTF have Bahrain got to do with anyway? This is a lad posing with a tea towel on his head on Twitter, not a fecking member of any royal family! How thick can some people be?

[Worthy4England]

WTF have Bahrain got to do with anyway? This is a lad posing with a tea towel on his head on Twitter, not a fecking member of any royal family! How thick can some people be?

Their current owner is a Bahraini national, Al Jasmi...

[officer_dibble]

WTF have Bahrain got to do with anyway? This is a lad posing with a tea towel on his head on Twitter, not a fecking member of any royal family! How thick can some people be?

Their current owner is a Bahraini national, Al Jasmi...

I’m suggesting he might not be all he seems

[Worthy4England]

Wigan fans are talking about owners coming in and running the club on a break-even model, which they say they'd be happy with. However, when they talk about what a break-even Wigan looks like they see a Championship club that spends some time in the Prem now and then. In reality, they are a club with a similar scope to Lincoln City and the thing that separates them is the stadium. They're still hungover from the Whelan era - as some of ours were (maybe some still are?) from Eddie.

I do take some issue with the notion that we're hungover from Eddie, like it's the only time we've ever been decent. It's a bit like the wankers who talk about history "since the Premier League started" - like they invented it and nothing happened prior to that.

Whilst situationally, to a point DSB made elsewhere about Bolton's history being in black and white, we can't and shouldn't take away the notion that we're the team that's spent 13th longest time in England's top division. Of course there are twists and turns in relation to that - we started earlier than some! But historically, it's not an overblown claim to suggest divisionally we should be in the top one.

Everything is cyclical. It was only in 1998/9 that City were in the third tier - and skint. Chelsea crawled up to the top division in 1991.

Not hungover from Eddie, that was just recent stuff. Loved it. Understanding of where we are now - good with it. Still hoping that someone with unlimited forever funds comes along when Sharon and Michael say it's time to moved on - you betcha. I'd refuse stadium sponsorship and retitle it "The Laundry" just to help convince them.

[BWFC_Insane]

Wigan fans are talking about owners coming in and running the club on a break-even model, which they say they'd be happy with. However, when they talk about what a break-even Wigan looks like they see a Championship club that spends some time in the Prem now and then. In reality, they are a club with a similar scope to Lincoln City and the thing that separates them is the stadium. They're still hungover from the Whelan era - as some of ours were (maybe some still are?) from Eddie.

I do take some issue with the notion that we're hungover from Eddie, like it's the only time we've ever been decent. It's a bit like the wankers who talk about history "since the Premier League started" - like they invented it and nothing happened prior to that.

Whilst situationally, to a point DSB made elsewhere about Bolton's history being in black and white, we can't and shouldn't take away the notion that we're the team that's spent 13th longest time in England's top division. Of course there are twists and turns in relation to that - we started earlier than some! But historically, it's not an overblown claim to suggest divisionally we should be in the top one.

Everything is cyclical. It was only in 1998/9 that City were in the third tier - and skint. Chelsea crawled up to the top division in 1991.

Not hungover from Eddie, that was just recent stuff. Loved it. Understanding of where we are now - good with it. Still hoping that someone with unlimited forever funds comes along when Sharon and Michael say it's time to moved on - you betcha. I'd refuse stadium sponsorship and retitle it "The Laundry" just to help convince them.

Yeah what Worthy said. I think we are all absolutely grateful for FV and what they have done and are doing. It’s generally a good time.

We’ve had our dark years and hopefully now are on an upwards curve.

But I think the idea that we should just sit and be thankful and not at least dream or hope for some more glory is misplaced. I don’t want FV to risk the clubs future. But at some point for either good or bad reasons we will need new custodians and if they were richer than Man City’s owners with even bigger ambitions nobody would say no.

Football doesn’t work if you are just happy with where you are. I’ve questioned how much we want to be back in the premiership but that’s under current assumptions. If we had someone with the money to propel us there I’d snap their hands off.

I don’t think any club has divine right to be there but I do feel a bit jealous seeing Brighton, Brentford et al up there.

[GhostoftheBok]

Honestly find all that a bit weird - as I've not said any of that.

It's actually the complete opposite of everything I've said on here for the past 3-4 years.

Our hangover is still looking at all aspects of the game through a lens of money as a fix.

The idea that a club becomes successful by bumbling along until someone with loads of money shows up is incredibly toxic and also total bullshit.

Thankfully Evatt is trying to oversee proper structural reform based around coaching. Coaching should be the stock in trade of the football club, from the kids to the first team. From experience, it wasn't in the past.

What that requires, though, is patience. What we learnt from our last period in the Prem was that you solve an issue by spending money. We bought ready-made, experienced players all over the park (for way more than we could really afford) and if they didn't work we bought more.

When we got relegated it arguably got worse, because at that stage the club and fans were so desperate to get back to the safety of the Prem that there was absolutely no patience.

You can see this now. A player makes a few starts and fans write them off. We've just spent money on a guy and they're already demanding we spend more to replace them. This isn't normal at this level, it's usually reserved for elite football; but it's a learnt behaviour.

[Worthy4England]

I think part of the point is, it changes relative to time. In the earlier days of Eddie, Sam and Garty, Bolton's was a model being held up as a great way to punch above your weight. Then there was Stoke. Over time it became Team X...etc etc.

[GhostoftheBok]

It's about establishing a baseline.

That's about giving sports staff time to work with talent.

Our baseline should be in the Championship. Even without massive external investment we should be able to maintain that level, so long as we allow the staff time to do their jobs.

Punching above our weight comes later. We've not even stabilised yet. Evatt is obviously in a rush and I support that, but whilst he sprints for the Prem the rest of the club needs to be building up that minimum level based around staff quality.

If we get into an ex-Premier League mindset of spending and spending until you get a first team lad who clicks then we'll be at the wall again before long. Everything we do should be about maximising the talent in the system and figuring out where to put our resources when we add more.

A lot of fans still have that Premier League mindset, but hopefully that'll change over time.

As Evatt has said, part of that stability we need is establishing the B Team and youth levels. You need upward pressure on the 22-25 at the top, as well as depth if there's a crisis. Again, staff at those levels need time. "The B Team did nothing in its first year, so we should scrap it and throw more money at the first team" is, again, that moronic ex-Premier League mindset we can't afford anymore. It's also the kind of idiocy the most successful Prem teams are now avoiding.

Rebuilding the entire structure around quality work from football staff is what we need and patience is required. Staff need a minimum of 6-12 months with all but the most experienced players before you can get a true picture of them. Even more so in a highly technical system like Evatt's.

Hopefully this season we've reached a point where there's that core of a squad who know what the manager wants and we can avoid a slow start. It'd be nice if the Bs were be a bit better too, so if we get bad injury issues over the winter we can filter a couple through; but in reality that system will probably only really flower 2-4 seasons in.

[Worthy4England]

If someone offered me Eddie level of investment and a 10 year run in the Prem (preferably with no likelihood of oblivion at the end) - I'd take it tomorrow. I wouldn't be too fussed what they did behind the scenes

I'm happy with our current progress though!

[BWFC_Insane]

^^A lot of that confuses two different things. One is a question of over or under competing in competitive sport relative to budget. The other is this sense of time fixing things and that is a better thing to do than spend money to buy a fix.

The two things are related but not in the way you’ve suggested.

If you plot any business in almost any industry with a metric of their relative size or investment raising potential against a metric of success (usually turnover or profitability apart from well, competitive sport) you will have a mean line and then a range of over and underperformance against it. But it is a range.

The same is true in football but it’s narrower still. The range in which you can over or underachieve is narrower, partly down to the data - there are only so many performance points relative to other industries but also partly down to the way the sport plays out.

But Allardyce found a way to overcompete when he came to Bolton. We had limited resources comparatively but he invested in the back room with huge innovations and sports science and couples that with rethinking how we did transfers. He noted a hole in the market where experienced and still very good players could be signed on competitive wages that worked with the clubs budget. As we went up the quality of those players rose. To the point that we heard stories of directors at Everton asking Moyes why Everton had a far bigger playing budget but were a poorer side.

However, that doesn’t last forever. The expansion of Tv deals clubs copying us, teams being less keen to let their fading stars leave meant that over time we needed to start spending money on fees or being more and more competitive in a wages market we’d been cautious in. Allardyce knew this and kept wanting more but it wasn’t until he left that Eddie really released the purse strings and the spending was a bit silly.

However, any edge you gain above the expected won’t last forever.

Neither is there no ceiling on it. FV have already said that should we get to the championship they’d need to look for investment to kick us on. The ceiling they have identified.

You can’t say any team that overperforms does so irrespective of budget. They all have money to invest along the way. It might not be the most but there are very very few true Cinderella stories.

[GhostoftheBok]

^^A lot of that confuses two different things. One is a question of over or under competing in competitive sport relative to budget. The other is this sense of time fixing things and that is a better thing to do than spend money to buy a fix.

The two things are related but not in the way you’ve suggested.

If you plot any business in almost any industry with a metric of their relative size or investment raising potential against a metric of success (usually turnover or profitability apart from well, competitive sport) you will have a mean line and then a range of over and underperformance against it. But it is a range.

The same is true in football but it’s narrower still. The range in which you can over or underachieve is narrower, partly down to the data - there are only so many performance points relative to other industries but also partly down to the way the sport plays out.

But Allardyce found a way to overcompete when he came to Bolton. We had limited resources comparatively but he invested in the back room with huge innovations and sports science and couples that with rethinking how we did transfers. He noted a hole in the market where experienced and still very good players could be signed on competitive wages that worked with the clubs budget. As we went up the quality of those players rose. To the point that we heard stories of directors at Everton asking Moyes why Everton had a far bigger playing budget but were a poorer side.

However, that doesn’t last forever. The expansion of Tv deals clubs copying us, teams being less keen to let their fading stars leave meant that over time we needed to start spending money on fees or being more and more competitive in a wages market we’d been cautious in. Allardyce knew this and kept wanting more but it wasn’t until he left that Eddie really released the purse strings and the spending was a bit silly.

However, any edge you gain above the expected won’t last forever.

Neither is there no ceiling on it. FV have already said that should we get to the championship they’d need to look for investment to kick us on. The ceiling they have identified.

You can’t say any team that ovwrperforms does so irrespective of budget. They all have money to invest along the way. It might not be the most but there are very very few true Cinderella stories.

Like I say, it's about a baseline. Overperforming is another issue entirely. What we need to do is establish the coaching and staffing to to set a minimum level, allowing us to get the absolute most out of the playing talent on the books. We're not there yet.

What we can't do is keep throwing money at a position because a player hasn't immediately been the best in the division. We have to let the staff work.

Yes, you need renewal in that structure over time; but in a good structure that should happen.

The club culture should exist independent of the manager. He should be part of it, but it shouldn't just be his personality that defines the entire club. The staff, likewise, should be the club's and not the manager's. The issue with Sam was that, as I say, he was the football department and that top-class veneer around the first team stood over structural rot that was badly exposed when he left and took "his people" with him.

I mean we can get into what happened Sam to Dougie is you like, but it doesn't seem profitable and I don't really see how you get around the fact that Sam left, took the key staff at the top with him and what was exposed was a gaping cavity where a football department should have been.

[GhostoftheBok]

If someone offered me Eddie level of investment and a 10 year run in the Prem (preferably with no likelihood of oblivion at the end) - I'd take it tomorrow. I wouldn't be too fussed what they did behind the scenes

I'm happy with our current progress though!

It's the "no likelihood of oblivion" part that is the issue.

I'm happy to spend like there's no tomorrow, so long as that spending isn't going to kill us.

Brighton are wading in about £400m of debt, for example. Which is fine, so long as Lord Blackjack of Cringe doesn't have a heart attack.

If said owner decides one day to stop investing, but writes off their debts, they will at least have a structurally sound football club. A good ground and facilities, with world class staff at the heart of it. In which case they'll have lived the dream for a bit and can adjust to their new reality.

We can't assume that for ourselves, though, so we need to get as close to that staffing model as we can on our budgets. That's what gets you to the point where a bad season is still 10 points above the Championship drop zone, rather than having 10 points in total.

Club structure isn't going to make a club with limited funds a guaranteed success, but it can allow a club to avoid the lowest pitfalls for long periods. Talent behind the scenes is as important to a football club as talent on the pitch - mostly because it's the cause of the talent being on the pitch in the first place.

[BWFC_Insane]

^^A lot of that confuses two different things. One is a question of over or under competing in competitive sport relative to budget. The other is this sense of time fixing things and that is a better thing to do than spend money to buy a fix.

The two things are related but not in the way you’ve suggested.

If you plot any business in almost any industry with a metric of their relative size or investment raising potential against a metric of success (usually turnover or profitability apart from well, competitive sport) you will have a mean line and then a range of over and underperformance against it. But it is a range.

The same is true in football but it’s narrower still. The range in which you can over or underachieve is narrower, partly down to the data - there are only so many performance points relative to other industries but also partly down to the way the sport plays out.

But Allardyce found a way to overcompete when he came to Bolton. We had limited resources comparatively but he invested in the back room with huge innovations and sports science and couples that with rethinking how we did transfers. He noted a hole in the market where experienced and still very good players could be signed on competitive wages that worked with the clubs budget. As we went up the quality of those players rose. To the point that we heard stories of directors at Everton asking Moyes why Everton had a far bigger playing budget but were a poorer side.

However, that doesn’t last forever. The expansion of Tv deals clubs copying us, teams being less keen to let their fading stars leave meant that over time we needed to start spending money on fees or being more and more competitive in a wages market we’d been cautious in. Allardyce knew this and kept wanting more but it wasn’t until he left that Eddie really released the purse strings and the spending was a bit silly.

However, any edge you gain above the expected won’t last forever.

Neither is there no ceiling on it. FV have already said that should we get to the championship they’d need to look for investment to kick us on. The ceiling they have identified.

You can’t say any team that ovwrperforms does so irrespective of budget. They all have money to invest along the way. It might not be the most but there are very very few true Cinderella stories.

Like I say, it's about a baseline. Overperforming is another issue entirely. What we need to do is establish the coaching and staffing to to set a minimum level, allowing us to get the absolute most out of the playing talent on the books. We're not there yet.

What we can't do is keep throwing money at a position because a player hasn't immediately been the best in the division. We have to let the staff work.

Yes, you need renewal in that structure over time; but in a good structure that should happen.

The club culture should exist independent of the manager. He should be part of it, but it shouldn't just be his personality that defines the entire club. The staff, likewise, should be the club's and not the manager's. The issue with Sam was that, as I say, he was the football department and that top-class veneer around the first team stood over structural rot that was badly exposed when he left and took "his people" with him.

I mean we can get into what happened Sam to Dougie is you like, but it doesn't seem profitable and I don't really see how you get around the fact that Sam left, took the key staff at the top with him and what was exposed was a gaping cavity where a football department should have been.

I think again there is a confusion between what we can afford to do and what brings most success. I’d we had City’s owners we’d want to be buying better players. And the reality is that if we had owners who were borh committed and prepared to invest season on season I’d take that.

It’s a better model than not having any money.

Back room and football department consistency is something that is almost unavoidable. There is no team who has found a solution. When a great, truly great manager like Allardyce who has built a transformative back room team goes then many of those staff will also leave. Whilst Allardyce did take a lot directly some of the key ones went separately. I agree Allardyce was the key man but great managers always will be.

Your hope is you can replace with equally quality. Money again becomes critical then. Attracting top managers needs it.

I’m not suggesting that what we are doing is wrong in our circumstances. But would I prefer we had the riches to buy better players - without going bust in a year - yeah absolutely.

[GhostoftheBok]

I think again there is a confusion between what we can afford to do and what brings most success. I’d we had City’s owners we’d want to be buying better players. And the reality is that if we had owners who were borh committed and prepared to invest season on season I’d take that.

It’s a better model than not having any money.

Back room and football department consistency is something that is almost unavoidable. There is no team who has found a solution. When a great, truly great manager like Allardyce who has built a transformative back room team goes then many of those staff will also leave. Whilst Allardyce did take a lot directly some of the key ones went separately. I agree Allardyce was the key man but great managers always will be.

Your hope is you can replace with equally quality. Money again becomes critical then. Attracting top managers needs it.

I’m not suggesting that what we are doing is wrong in our circumstances. But would I prefer we had the riches to buy better players - without going bust in a year - yeah absolutely.

I think we can all agree that lots of money is better than no money.

Unless we're talking about Wigan.

[GhostoftheBok]

Back on track. Wigan have again failed to pay their players. The owner "gave assurances" all outstanding bills and wages would be paid by today. Amazingly, that hasn't happened. Personally, I'm shocked.

[Hoboh]

Honestly find all that a bit weird - as I've not said any of that.

It's actually the complete opposite of everything I've said on here for the past 3-4 years.

Our hangover is still looking at all aspects of the game through a lens of money as a fix.

The idea that a club becomes successful by bumbling along until someone with loads of money shows up is incredibly toxic and also total bullshit.

Thankfully Evatt is trying to oversee proper structural reform based around coaching. Coaching should be the stock in trade of the football club, from the kids to the first team. From experience, it wasn't in the past.

What that requires, though, is patience. What we learnt from our last period in the Prem was that you solve an issue by spending money. We bought ready-made, experienced players all over the park (for way more than we could really afford) and if they didn't work we bought more.

When we got relegated it arguably got worse, because at that stage the club and fans were so desperate to get back to the safety of the Prem that there was absolutely no patience.

You can see this now. A player makes a few starts and fans write them off. We've just spent money on a guy and they're already demanding we spend more to replace them. This isn't normal at this level, it's usually reserved for elite football; but it's a learnt behaviour.

Sorry but I take issue with some of that.
If a player in the opinion of a manager is good enough to fill a certain position then any professional should be more than capable of doing so, otherwise he is either not actually any good or the manager's judgement is poor.
Patience is only required for upcoming youth, not seasoned professionals.

[GhostoftheBok]

Sorry but I take issue with some of that.
If a player in the opinion of a manager is good enough to fill a certain position then any professional should be more than capable of doing so, otherwise he is either not actually any good or the manager's judgement is poor.
Patience is only required for upcoming youth, not seasoned professionals.

You're underestimating how much players have to learn for modern systems.

The easy example these days is Pep. Grealish took a year to adapt, despite very clearly being a top player. They built a system for Haaland a year in advance and he still didn't really get to grips with the off the ball stuff for 6 months. Henry got dropped for scoring a goal against Lisbon, because he'd broken with the attacking pattern. He's spoken about how he at first struggled to learn the patterns and then struggled to remain disciplined enough to play them. He uses that as an example when coaching so players don't feel stupid when they're finding it hard to learn. He was an experienced, world class player and he found it tough.

Evatt's style if highly technical and it takes time to learn. He's said so himself, so you don't need to take my word for it.