The Debt.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I certainly believe it has been a nightmare for them. PG's health is testament to that and I hope he recovers. The nightmare whilst not entirely, is in large part of their own making. I know society likes to pass the buck and not accept responsibility for mush these days, but it really does rest with those responsible for decision making. In the instance ED and PG are the decision makers, or are we to accept Doris the tea lady is really at fault here?

I have never met Eddie Davies btw but have spent several years campaigning for the accountability of senior public employees who have not acted in good faith. But I make a huge distinction between those who act mistakenly but in good faith and those whose actions are not in good faith.
Eddie Davies would not have made his fortune in the way he did without considerable business acumen but the world of football is very different and outcomes far less predictable. He would have been wise not to have got involved at all but once he was he was ensnared in events many of which he could not control and he was never going to escape abuse whenever he decided that enough was enough.
I was shocked by the news of Phil Gartside's illness not least because, on the few occasions I have met him, I have never been left in any doubt that Bolton Wanderers was just as important to him as most other supporters. I hope too that he fully recovers and that Trevor Birch can find some way through this maelstrom.

I sort of agree. (Not about the campaigning).
But, the nub is, to me, that we have had three shit managers in succession, each of which has been significantly shitter than his predecessor. That, ultimately is PG's fault. PG being in that position for all that time was a mistake that ED made. He might be a genius at kettle filaments but he's learnt that in fact he was, as most 'entrepeneurs' actually are, just fxcking lucky, and in the form of BWFC his luck has dried up. He's not a genius, he's probably not a criminal, but like a lot of rich people he got hooked on his own legend.

[Worthy4England]

It would be possible to use a lot more but you have managed to hit on the the one word that really says it all- simplistic.

You are also making some very simplistic statements, although often dressing them up in 1000 words to support your position. People who have a more succinct view are generally lobbed simplistically into the not sensible, knuckle dragging waste bin, if that view differs from yours.

However, if they happen to be in agreement, it gets one simplistic sentence saying how wonderfully perceptive they are.

As someone who's been supportive of Davies and Gartside, I was generally happy to take at face value Gartside's statements around being a Club with near zero debt and that ED had the principle amount covered. That we can't file the Accounts raises some serious questions, fck all to do with the size of Premier players Contracts.

You forgot (or were too kind) to mention condascending arrogance.

I thought you had understood this, Worthy. Gartside was absolutely right in saying that the club had near zero debt whilst Eddie was lending the club money that in cash flow terms was more akin to equity finance than loan finance. The financial problems we now face are, as you really ought to know, the additional liabilities that have built up since Eddie stopped pumping money in.

The directors and auditors are presently unable to sign off the 2015 accounts on a going concern basis and cannot sign them off on any other basis without damaging the club's interest. So what's your considered advice given the negotiations that Trevor Birch is conducting?

Now lets consider Plan A and Plan B.

Plan A involves trying to keep the club as a going concern that might be of interest to a prospective purchaser i.e. a former Premiership club with a highly developed infrastructure that is only one promotion away from a return to the Premiership.

Plan A is hanging by a thread but should it have been abandoned before talking to supposedly interested parties from Thailand, Ireland, Greece, Essex or anywhere else?

Plan B is that you abandon Plan A and make such cuts to the clubs playing and other staff that further relegation was all but certain requiring still more cuts.

Just for the record the club did cut the wage bill by £25million in the two years following relegation and is believed to have cut it still further but would you liked to have seen the club to have cut more deeply and if so when and to what extent? Would you, for example, have preferred that we had not taken Jutkiewic and Dawson on loan and just given up on attempts to regain Premiership status?

I'll try to work through the questions you raise one by one...Non filing of Accounts - There's rarely anything more damaging to a business than not being able to file the Accounts. The Club statement says that they reckon they'd have been inside FFP regulations - but they don't sound too certain. This relates to events in the past and doesn't sound like it has the necessary competence around it. I wouldn't give Trevor Birch any advice as no one outside the Club actually knows the situation regarding the finances. My observations are around how we got to this point. The comments about zero debt, I understand have been impacted by events since ED stopped putting money in. A set of events that would have been well known by Gartside. He's the bloke at the top of the Club's operation and was responsible for that when Eddie was pumping money in - for which he took plaudits in the press. He was also responsible and accountable when that funding stream stopped. His job didn't change - how he needed to discharge it did.

Your assumptions around Plan A and Plan B don't make much sense to me - Plan A seems to be, from your outline, try and get straight back up. Great - not a bad plan, but needed to be weighed against the scenario that we now face - that as we all know didn't sneak up on us. Prem club almost certainly more appealing than Champ club. Given that in the noughties, Gartside said that they were always open to listening to proposals for new investment, how likely was it to occur, given it hadn't already?

The Plan B bit - the relegation certainty. There were at the time plenty of Clubs with a much lower wage bill than us who weren't relegation certainties.

As for what I'd have liked them to do (and what was practical for them to do) - they're two different things. I'd have liked them to get some oil oligarch to sign Messi - but we seemed to be handing out new Contracts to some fairly average players whilst signing even more average players after the point in time that it became clear that going straight back up wasn't nailed on. That just about none of our senior squad players has done anything but see out their Contract (presumably because they couldn't get anything like the same elsewhere), speaks volumes.

The Juke and Dawson - that was part of the gamble maybe - had it come off, Gartside might have been a hero, I'm sure we'd have all been delighted had we made the play-offs and gone up. It didn't so we all just say "Unlucky, Phil"?

There are often fine margins between being good at something and being bad at it. Maybe the width of a goalpost. There isn't a scenario that I can see that makes you good at running a company that's effectively gone bankrupt. That I believe Gartside is a genuine Bolton fan doesn't absolve him of this.

[midlands exile]

I certainly believe it has been a nightmare for them. PG's health is testament to that and I hope he recovers. The nightmare whilst not entirely, is in large part of their own making. I know society likes to pass the buck and not accept responsibility for mush these days, but it really does rest with those responsible for decision making. In the instance ED and PG are the decision makers, or are we to accept Doris the tea lady is really at fault here?

I have never met Eddie Davies btw but have spent several years campaigning for the accountability of senior public employees who have not acted in good faith. But I make a huge distinction between those who act mistakenly but in good faith and those whose actions are not in good faith.
Eddie Davies would not have made his fortune in the way he did without considerable business acumen but the world of football is very different and outcomes far less predictable. He would have been wise not to have got involved at all but once he was he was ensnared in events many of which he could not control and he was never going to escape abuse whenever he decided that enough was enough.
I was shocked by the news of Phil Gartside's illness not least because, on the few occasions I have met him, I have never been left in any doubt that Bolton Wanderers was just as important to him as most other supporters. I hope too that he fully recovers and that Trevor Birch can find some way through this maelstrom.

Each of your posts reads more and more like the "corporate speak" style that PG would stick in the annual report, i.e. dressed-up waffle.

[BWFC_Insane]

The trouble with the blame game is that there is a difference between being responsible for the situation and being entirely at fault.

Eddie is responsible. And somewhat at fault. Same for Gartside.

But the argument that there wasn't much else they could do in certain scenarios certainly holds true.

There are also unanswered questions. Did ED give sufficient notice that he was ceasing funding? Did the short term funding options happen because a takeover was close that subsequently fell through?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

While I might not necessarily agree with Gudnib I find his posts intriguing. Then again I do usually prefer reasoned analytical conversations to cheap jibes and name-calling.

[Enoch]

While I might not necessarily agree with Gudnib I find his posts intriguing. Then again I do usually prefer reasoned analytical conversations to cheap jibes and name-calling.

nice person!

[midlands exile]

I certainly believe it has been a nightmare for them. PG's health is testament to that and I hope he recovers. The nightmare whilst not entirely, is in large part of their own making. I know society likes to pass the buck and not accept responsibility for mush these days, but it really does rest with those responsible for decision making. In the instance ED and PG are the decision makers, or are we to accept Doris the tea lady is really at fault here?

I have never met Eddie Davies btw but have spent several years campaigning for the accountability of senior public employees who have not acted in good faith. But I make a huge distinction between those who act mistakenly but in good faith and those whose actions are not in good faith.
Eddie Davies would not have made his fortune in the way he did without considerable business acumen but the world of football is very different and outcomes far less predictable. He would have been wise not to have got involved at all but once he was he was ensnared in events many of which he could not control and he was never going to escape abuse whenever he decided that enough was enough.
I was shocked by the news of Phil Gartside's illness not least because, on the few occasions I have met him, I have never been left in any doubt that Bolton Wanderers was just as important to him as most other supporters. I hope too that he fully recovers and that Trevor Birch can find some way through this maelstrom.

Each of your posts reads more and more like the "corporate speak" style that PG would stick in the annual report, i.e. dressed-up waffle.

In case DSB thinks the above post was a cheap jibe, no, what I really meant was that I'm increasingly convinced that Gudnib is a club stooge, courtesy of the style of language as well as content.

[Hoboh]

No, I have just been following it all for a very long time worrying how it was all going to end and getting annoyed with the blame mongers whilst Eddie Davies and Phil Gartside were living a nightmare with little chance of any satisfactory resolution.

Sorry mate but I call total Bullshit on that!,
Who approved purchases, wages, managerial appointments?
In nearly any other business, Gartside would have gone a long time ago.
Most people and supporters are grateful to Eddie for what he has done for the club but his judgement, for a few years now, has been questionable. There maybe a good reason for this.

[Harry Genshaw]

I find it odd that someone so apparently eager to defend Gartside and Davies at every turn can point the finger at us fans and our unrealistic expectations. Deluded footy fans. Who'd a thought it?!

[Lord Kangana]

the board are either incompetent or have ulterior motives.

It is my own personal presumption that like many hubristic businessmen before them, they probably had schemes in their minds of how to invest money without risking it and get a guaranteed return.

I think they've spectacularly f*cked it in the last couple of years, partly because the aforementioned hubris was based on the Premiership Years - where debt can spiral unabated because the gravy train runneth over (bish'll love the mixed metaphor). They probably assumed that given enough rolls of the dice they'd get back there. We haven't.

[midlands exile]

the board are either incompetent or have ulterior motives.

It is my own personal presumption that like many hubristic businessmen before them, they probably had schemes in their minds of how to invest money without risking it and get a guaranteed return.

I think they've spectacularly f*cked it in the last couple of years, partly because the aforementioned hubris was based on the Premiership Years - where debt can spiral unabated because the gravy train runneth over (bish'll love the mixed metaphor). They probably assumed that given enough rolls of the dice they'd get back there. We haven't.

But the last few years haven't seen us suffering simply a bad run of luck, as per a gypsy curse. Instead we have seen chronically bad decisions time after time, that "people who don't know football" questioned as they happened. But what the hell does the layman football fan know over a bunch of well-recompensated chartered accountants and millionaire businessmen?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Club statement.

Latest update from Trevor Birch regarding the club's current situation
Bolton Wanderers Football Club can confirm that all members of the playing squad will receive their wages for the month of December.

The club has raised some short-term funds through the sale of property assets, with the Professional Footballers’ Association also agreeing to contribute a significant percentage of the player wage bill for the month.

Trevor Birch, advisor to the owner and board at Bolton Wanderers, continues to advance discussions with a number of parties who are interested in taking over control of the club.

“We’re continuing to work through what is an extremely challenging time for the football club,” Birch updated. “We still have an immediate and critical funding requirement to enable the club to survive and provide a breathing space in the short term to complete a sale of the club.

“The recent sale of some property assets has assisted, together with the support of the PFA, but we need to raise further substantial funds and player sales cannot be ruled out.

“We are still working to the deadline of the winding up hearing on January 18 and unless we are successful in our efforts the club faces a very uncertain future.

“We can also confirm that Terry Robinson is now working with the club in a review of all of the club’s operations.

“We will continue to update everyone as soon as we are able to show further progress. In the meantime the club would like to thank all supporters for their continued and valued support.”

[plymouth wanderer]

At least we're kept up to date!

[Bruce Rioja]

“We can also confirm that Terry Robinson is now working with the club in a review of all of the club’s operations.

Is he bringing the buckets?

[Peter Thompson]

This latest Birch statement doesn't quite add up to me - I heard the other day from a 'trusted' normally reliable source (not Plymouth !) who knows a few senior people within the club that we are very close to finalising a deal to sell the club, but that the due diligence process may take a while.

Now I'm not an expert in takeovers, but with regards to the Birch statement surely selling assets in the short term just to get us through the period until the takeover is completed in a months time will surely make us less attractive to the buyer or am I missing something ?, again surely the said potential buyer would not want assets that may be theirs in a months time being sold to someone else just because the paperwork is taking a while.

Or could it be that the consortium / buyer in question, has put some money in whilst the takeover is being finalised against these Macron offices in question (almost like a deposit) - there is obviously a danger of the takeover falling through like any business transaction, which is possibly why they are preparing the fans for player sales in Jan should the takeover not be completed OR perhaps the potential new owner are involved in bringing Terry Robinson in to try & get rid of the higher earners who don't have a future a the club i.e. the likes of Medo, Dervite, Spearing

[BWFC_Insane]

Come back to my question. We have sold off assets to help pay wages for our players. For a month. With PFA assistance. Offices sold and hotel leased according to Iles. But apparently we still need to sell players in January to cover other costs.

So what pays the wage bill in January and February?

We won't have any assets left and the value of the club will be seriously reduced. Yet it's debt level will remain the same.

So perhaps someone could explain how this route is going to be better than administration without a very quick takeover?

[bobo the clown]

^^^^ IF WE WENT INTO ADMINISTRATION THESE ASSETS WOULD BE SOLD OFF ANYWAY, WITH LITTLE OR NO REGARD TO VALUE.

Sheesh, you're hard work.

[plymouth wanderer]

This latest Birch statement doesn't quite add up to me - I heard the other day from a 'trusted' normally reliable source (not Plymouth !) who knows a few senior people within the club that we are very close to finalising a deal to sell the club, but that the due diligence process may take a while.

Now I'm not an expert in takeovers, but with regards to the Birch statement surely selling assets in the short term just to get us through the period until the takeover is completed in a months time will surely make us less attractive to the buyer or am I missing something ?, again surely the said potential buyer would not want assets that may be theirs in a months time being sold to someone else just because the paperwork is taking a while.

Or could it be that the consortium / buyer in question, has put some money in whilst the takeover is being finalised against these Macron offices in question (almost like a deposit) - there is obviously a danger of the takeover falling through like any business transaction, which is possibly why they are preparing the fans for player sales in Jan should the takeover not be completed OR perhaps the potential new owner are involved in bringing Terry Robinson in to try & get rid of the higher earners who don't have a future a the club i.e. the likes of Medo, Dervite, Spearing

Come back to my question. We have sold off assets to help pay wages for our players. For a month. With PFA assistance. Offices sold and hotel leased according to Iles. But apparently we still need to sell players in January to cover other costs.

So what pays the wage bill in January and February?

We won't have any assets left and the value of the club will be seriously reduced. Yet it's debt level will remain the same.

So perhaps someone could explain how this route is going to be better than administration without a very quick takeover?

TIT

[BWFC_Insane]

^^^^ IF WE WENT INTO ADMINISTRATION THESE ASSETS WOULD BE SOLD OFF ANYWAY, WITH LITTLE OR NO REGARD TO VALUE.

Sheesh, you're hard work.

But whatever was left would be debt free. Administration is meant to keep a business operational.

My question is what do we sell to pay off the wages as we move forward? And as assets are sold off and debt not reduced the club becomes less and less attractive for a takeover.

I see no logic unless a takeover is relatively close. And that is what I'm clinging to.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I agree with BWFCi that we can't keep selling off bits every month to maintain a debt. That's a perfectly reasonable statement to make, or concern to have.

But I genuinely don't believe it's a long-term plan.

It seems to me that we're all hoping to have a takeover in place by Jan 18th, or the wheels of involuntary administration will start to turn. In fact you could argue that they already have, with notice of that court date. So all this is just keeping us going while we try to sell the club.

It's not ideal to sell off part of your assets while you're trying to buy the club. But if it helps us pay the players, and thus stop them being legally able to walk away for nowt, then it'll have to do. In other words: selling the office space might stop us having to sell Vela, Clough, etc. Might; not will. Depends on the buyout... although in a weird way it almost *helps* the buyout because the consortiums will presumably now be buying a slightly less expensive business, which makes their own fundraising a little easier.

It's not perfect, but what is?