Problems with Gartside

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Yep, seemed to be every single away game for about three months. Get to an hour drawing, take off Muamba and promptly lose. Norwich away sticks in the memory for some reason. Think that might have been the one where it became laughably predictable.

Should have been at Crawley away, dude. Different personnel switch, same in practice - striker on for midfielder. Crawley then run through the holes in midfield, we lose.

Indeed. Worse, when he made that switch we were winning the game but losing the midfield. So he removes a midfielder (the allegedly windmilling Mavies) and brings on dear old Kev. That's the night I lost faith in him.

[Athers]

Whatever the view on Phil Gartside is I maintain that he couldn't have done an interview like that one with the manager under the extreme pressure he was.

The accusation of having 'gone quiet' is better for me than a sorry soundbite after every defeat and having to lie about how the manager has his full support.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Has this been posted already?

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... n/?ref=mac" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's one tired, upset, narky and bitter man, which is a shame after all the years. It's also a shame he hasn't done this before and tat he's disappeared of the media spotlight for the past few months.

Fascinating interview.

The players’ wage bill has come down from £50million-plus to £20million in two years

- confirmation and numeration of what we already suspected.

he’s {Freedman} never been refused a loan signing

- not what was said by the BN when Kightly and Ramage went to Burnley and Barnsley last September... who's wrong?

Notable that we seem to have been shocked by wages when we went down. Are we to infer that the relegation-reduction clauses were insufficient or absent?

[Worthy4England]

Whilst understanding I might be in a minority of 1. I think he's got a point or two there. I'm not sure which of our fans in the same position as Gartside would say to an investor "keep your money". All dependent on the terms under which it might be repayable of course - which he doesn't cover.

He answered the question about Elmander and what we got for Cahill.

There was some numpty on Talk Sport last week asking "where had all the money gone" "what happened to the money from the new sponsorship deal" - stupid questions. They're all in the pot called "revenue" which has been vastly outstripped by "costs".

We spent all the 80's and most of the 90's wishing we had some cash to spend - Gartside got it off Eddie. Now we've spent it folks grumble. No pleasing some people...

I don't think Gartside has got everything right. But if I go back to a wet and windy day in the mid 80's in the 4th Division, dreaming of someone to give us some investment - and I look at where we are now, they're a million miles apart (we probably had better players then, but a stadium that was falling down around where we sat. )

Like many (for the benefit of LK), I am worried about the terms under which ED gets paid back. Garty keeps saying it's "equity" not "debt" - but I'm none the wiser as to whether Eddie is expecting it all back or not.

[General Mannerheim]

sounds to me like hes doesn't want any back, just doesn't wanna chuck any more in?

[Worthy4England]

sounds to me like hes doesn't want any back, just doesn't wanna chuck any more in?

The second part sounds correct - sounds like we're going to make the FFP critera this year with a wage bill down to £20m or so from £50m. So theoretically we could probably spend a bit, if it was there.

Gartside has always used phrases like "it's equity not debt" regarding the lump sum and he certainly doesn't seem to be demanding anything back short term in relation to the principle amount, but he does get the interest payments.

I guess the question people don't know about is if the proverbial double decker came along, what happens next?

[Gary the Enfield]

sounds to me like hes doesn't want any back, just doesn't wanna chuck any more in?

The second part sounds correct - sounds like we're going to make the FFP critera this year with a wage bill down to £20m or so from £50m. So theoretically we could probably spend a bit, if it was there.

Gartside has always used phrases like "it's equity not debt" regarding the lump sum and he certainly doesn't seem to be demanding anything back short term in relation to the principle amount, but he does get the interest payments.

I guess the question people don't know about is if the proverbial double decker came along, what happens next?

He would eat it?

I think he's been as honest as he can be in that interview. He must be sick of explaining the 'debt' issue. Like most I am happy that if/ when Eddie Davies shuffles off this mortal coil there is sufficient protection for the family not to come cashing in immediately.

He's also right in saying irrespective of the off-field performance he can't influence what happens on it, beyond supporting the manager in his player requests.

Overall I personally am happy Phil Gartside is in the Chairman's seat in what is a difficult period for our club.

Long live ED and PG, because god knows what the next custodians will do.

[boltonboris]

The next lot will stick us in a pallet truck and move us to Cleckheaton

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

sounds to me like hes doesn't want any back, just doesn't wanna chuck any more in?

The second part sounds correct - sounds like we're going to make the FFP critera this year with a wage bill down to £20m or so from £50m. So theoretically we could probably spend a bit, if it was there.

Gartside has always used phrases like "it's equity not debt" regarding the lump sum and he certainly doesn't seem to be demanding anything back short term in relation to the principle amount, but he does get the interest payments.

I guess the question people don't know about is if the proverbial double decker came along, what happens next?

He would eat it?

I think he's been as honest as he can be in that interview. He must be sick of explaining the 'debt' issue. Like most I am happy that if/ when Eddie Davies shuffles off this mortal coil there is sufficient protection for the family not to come cashing in immediately.

He's also right in saying irrespective of the off-field performance he can't influence what happens on it, beyond supporting the manager in his player requests.

Overall I personally am happy Phil Gartside is in the Chairman's seat in what is a difficult period for our club.

Long live ED and PG, because god knows what the next custodians will do.

Agreed. There are so many examples of muppetry of the highest order from owners and chairmen in recent years, it makes me glad that we have who we have. PG has got a few things wrong, but without hindsight I think he's made decisions that largely were ok at the time.

[Worthy4England]

sounds to me like hes doesn't want any back, just doesn't wanna chuck any more in?

The second part sounds correct - sounds like we're going to make the FFP critera this year with a wage bill down to £20m or so from £50m. So theoretically we could probably spend a bit, if it was there.

Gartside has always used phrases like "it's equity not debt" regarding the lump sum and he certainly doesn't seem to be demanding anything back short term in relation to the principle amount, but he does get the interest payments.

I guess the question people don't know about is if the proverbial double decker came along, what happens next?

He would eat it?

I think he's been as honest as he can be in that interview. He must be sick of explaining the 'debt' issue. Like most I am happy that if/ when Eddie Davies shuffles off this mortal coil there is sufficient protection for the family not to come cashing in immediately.

He's also right in saying irrespective of the off-field performance he can't influence what happens on it, beyond supporting the manager in his player requests.

Overall I personally am happy Phil Gartside is in the Chairman's seat in what is a difficult period for our club.

Long live ED and PG, because god knows what the next custodians will do.

That's broadly where I'm at, although he can influence what happens on the pitch, because he picks the guy that determines what happens on the pitch...

[Gary the Enfield]

sounds to me like hes doesn't want any back, just doesn't wanna chuck any more in?

The second part sounds correct - sounds like we're going to make the FFP critera this year with a wage bill down to £20m or so from £50m. So theoretically we could probably spend a bit, if it was there.

Gartside has always used phrases like "it's equity not debt" regarding the lump sum and he certainly doesn't seem to be demanding anything back short term in relation to the principle amount, but he does get the interest payments.

I guess the question people don't know about is if the proverbial double decker came along, what happens next?

He would eat it?

I think he's been as honest as he can be in that interview. He must be sick of explaining the 'debt' issue. Like most I am happy that if/ when Eddie Davies shuffles off this mortal coil there is sufficient protection for the family not to come cashing in immediately.

He's also right in saying irrespective of the off-field performance he can't influence what happens on it, beyond supporting the manager in his player requests.

Overall I personally am happy Phil Gartside is in the Chairman's seat in what is a difficult period for our club.

Long live ED and PG, because god knows what the next custodians will do.

That's broadly where I'm at, although he can influence what happens on the pitch, because he picks the guy that determines what happens on the pitch...

...and by extension Eddie Davies keeps Phil in the job whereby he picks the guy that determines what happens on the pitch........

[TANGODANCER]

Fully stating I know absolutely nothing about high finance, the way I understand all this is that we (the club) don't actually owe Eddie Davies anything because he already owns the lot, club, complex, hotel,(?) training ground and all the associated assets and, if he wished could sell the lot (club included) as a business venture or to real estate whenever he (or a descendant) chose. In other words, cash in his £m assets and bank the lot. I've no idea how much he'd take for the club, but he could sell it and still be left with some tidy assets from Burnden Leisure etc. No doubt, for tax reasons etc, it will all be tied up in financial jargon, but either way E.D's money will be safe. In other words, the club is just a segment of the Davies empire and by some internal manipulation is handled by the accountants to balance all the books and keep the tax man happy. Keeping the club as a separate item/business segment will no doubt have its financial reasons and implications, but E.D never stands to risk being wiped out by it all.? It could, of course, be the end of Bolton Wanderers as a football club if that should happen.

This may be entirely wrong, of course.

[boltonboris]

I'm sure people will be quick to jump on your closing statement Tango

[Worthy4England]

Fully stating I know absolutely nothing about high finance, the way I understand all this is that we (the club) don't actually owe Eddie Davies anything because he already owns the lot, club, complex, hotel,(?) training ground and all the associated assets and, if he wished could sell the lot (club included) as a business venture or to real estate whenever he (or a descendant) chose. In other words, cash in his £m assets and bank the lot. I've no idea how much he'd take for the club, but he could sell it and still be left with some tidy assets from Burnden Leisure etc. No doubt, for tax reasons etc, it will all be tied up in financial jargon, but either way E.D's money will be safe. In other words, the club is just a segment of the Davies empire and by some internal manipulation is handled by the accountants to balance all the books and keep the tax man happy. Keeping the club as a separate item/business segment will no doubt have its financial reasons and implications, but E.D never stands to risk being wiped out by it all.? It could, of course, be the end of Bolton Wanderers as a football club if that should happen.

This may be entirely wrong, of course.

I think that's pretty much it.

[Andy Waller]

Fully stating I know absolutely nothing about high finance, the way I understand all this is that we (the club) don't actually owe Eddie Davies anything because he already owns the lot, club, complex, hotel,(?) training ground and all the associated assets and, if he wished could sell the lot (club included) as a business venture or to real estate whenever he (or a descendant) chose. In other words, cash in his £m assets and bank the lot. I've no idea how much he'd take for the club, but he could sell it and still be left with some tidy assets from Burnden Leisure etc. No doubt, for tax reasons etc, it will all be tied up in financial jargon, but either way E.D's money will be safe. In other words, the club is just a segment of the Davies empire and by some internal manipulation is handled by the accountants to balance all the books and keep the tax man happy. Keeping the club as a separate item/business segment will no doubt have its financial reasons and implications, but E.D never stands to risk being wiped out by it all.? It could, of course, be the end of Bolton Wanderers as a football club if that should happen.

This may be entirely wrong, of course.

This is my way of thinking about it too Mr Dancer. He's just bankrolling us interest free. Imagine how far up the creek we'd be if we were paying interest?

I've read the interview with Gartside and he goes on a lot about "hindsight". A man in his position is paid for his foresight not to get us in these situations.

[Worthy4England]

Fully stating I know absolutely nothing about high finance, the way I understand all this is that we (the club) don't actually owe Eddie Davies anything because he already owns the lot, club, complex, hotel,(?) training ground and all the associated assets and, if he wished could sell the lot (club included) as a business venture or to real estate whenever he (or a descendant) chose. In other words, cash in his £m assets and bank the lot. I've no idea how much he'd take for the club, but he could sell it and still be left with some tidy assets from Burnden Leisure etc. No doubt, for tax reasons etc, it will all be tied up in financial jargon, but either way E.D's money will be safe. In other words, the club is just a segment of the Davies empire and by some internal manipulation is handled by the accountants to balance all the books and keep the tax man happy. Keeping the club as a separate item/business segment will no doubt have its financial reasons and implications, but E.D never stands to risk being wiped out by it all.? It could, of course, be the end of Bolton Wanderers as a football club if that should happen.

This may be entirely wrong, of course.

This is my way of thinking about it too Mr Dancer. He's just bankrolling us interest free. Imagine how far up the creek we'd be if we were paying interest?

I've read the interview with Gartside and he goes on a lot about "hindsight". A man in his position is paid for his foresight not to get us in these situations.

It's not interest free - we paid £7.5m in interest last year, £6.9m of which was to Moonshift.

Edit: Moonshift did waive the interest payments from 1/7/2013 now I check back.

[EverSoYouri]

Fully stating I know absolutely nothing about high finance, the way I understand all this is that we (the club) don't actually owe Eddie Davies anything because he already owns the lot, club, complex, hotel,(?) training ground and all the associated assets and, if he wished could sell the lot (club included) as a business venture or to real estate whenever he (or a descendant) chose. In other words, cash in his £m assets and bank the lot. I've no idea how much he'd take for the club, but he could sell it and still be left with some tidy assets from Burnden Leisure etc. No doubt, for tax reasons etc, it will all be tied up in financial jargon, but either way E.D's money will be safe. In other words, the club is just a segment of the Davies empire and by some internal manipulation is handled by the accountants to balance all the books and keep the tax man happy. Keeping the club as a separate item/business segment will no doubt have its financial reasons and implications, but E.D never stands to risk being wiped out by it all.? It could, of course, be the end of Bolton Wanderers as a football club if that should happen.

This may be entirely wrong, of course.

This is my way of thinking about it too Mr Dancer. He's just bankrolling us interest free. Imagine how far up the creek we'd be if we were paying interest?

I've read the interview with Gartside and he goes on a lot about "hindsight". A man in his position is paid for his foresight not to get us in these situations.

It's not interest free - we paid £7.5m in interest last year, £6.9m of which was to Moonshift.

Yep. But I understand he stopped taking interest as of July this year. (Al Fayed, btw, never took interest on his investment at Fulham).

[Athers]

The weird thing is that if we'd not spent money on increasing the chances of staying up and dropped earlier it may have actually been 'better' for us because the financial gap is now even bigger. This is probably true except in the last year when the TV money went up so dramatically and we might have absorbed that revenue into the club without spending it all.

So basically we couldn't have gone down at a worse time!

[Worthy4England]

Yep. But I understand he stopped taking interest as of July this year. (Al Fayed, btw, never took interest on his investment at Fulham).

We did - I went and had another look at the Accounts and did an edit.

[jetsetwilly]

The next lot will stick us in a pallet truck and move us to Cleckheaton

Would suit me, saves me an hours drive