Rumour of a takeover?

[bobo the clown]

Yup.

To save you all the bother. It is/was a Danish company marketing Argentinian corned beef amongst other things.

I've spoken with avid Everton fans who had no idea.

[Enoch]

Fray Hafnia?

[Prufrock]

I wonder how that works. Clearly they can't tell them what the limit is, and also clearly Man City were taking the piss, but there must be a point to which they can ease it above what they could otherwise get. Give it a few years of everyone doing that...

Yes ... tje black and the white are easy but shades of grey ? There must be 50 of them.

I guess you can come reasonably close to what commercial advantage is given. I mean, has anyone ever bought a fibrelec ??

Here's a quiz question ... Everton wete sponsored by Hafnia for about 4 years. What is a Hafnia ?

Advertising is such a nebulous (read bullshit/made-up) game though. And that pesky EU won't be happy if they start price-fixing. Clearly if everyone else is getting £30m and you suddenly come up with £150m then that's suss (cough, Man City), but I reckon there'll be someone going £50m (first deal of its kind, different structure, bullshit bullshit bullshit) then someone will manage to persuade them to let them sponsor corner flags (United wanted back of the shirt sponsors I think) and obviously there's no figure for what that could get (add £10m) then some other wheeze etc...

[SmokinFrazier]

I wouldn't be against a takeover happening but it's be important to have a good chairman if it does, one who isn't just a businessman but knows and understands football. We don't have a huge fanbase at Bolton but given the amount of TV revenue that the Premier League offers, we must be an attraction proposition to any potential buyers due to our stadium and facilities, so I can see why we would attract investment. When you think that PSG paid £50m for David Luiz, £40m really isn't a lot for our whole club so I'm excited by the prospect of it but it has to be done right, which means solid financial backing and a good chairman to overlook everything.

As much as he's blamed for some things on here, I'd be happy with Gartside being our chairman if we were taken over. I think we'd need that level of experience to make sure any transitional period goes smoothly but as long as he was still here, I'd be very optimistic.

[Hoboh]

I wouldn't be against a takeover happening but it's be important to have a good chairman if it does, one who isn't just a businessman but knows and understands football. We don't have a huge fanbase at Bolton but given the amount of TV revenue that the Premier League offers, we must be an attraction proposition to any potential buyers due to our stadium and facilities, so I can see why we would attract investment. When you think that PSG paid £50m for David Luiz, £40m really isn't a lot for our whole club so I'm excited by the prospect of it but it has to be done right, which means solid financial backing and a good chairman to overlook everything.

As much as he's blamed for some things on here, I'd be happy with Gartside being our chairman if we were taken over. I think we'd need that level of experience to make sure any transitional period goes smoothly but as long as he was still here, I'd be very optimistic.

I'd have been happier knowing Eddie Davies knew a bit more about football instead of being guided by a clown, we may still well have been in the Premier league but for Gartside's inaction.

[boltonboris]

so - the boffins in charge of FFP are aware of this workaround...

Yes - they have the concept of Fair Market Value (FMV) now in the FFP "rulebook"...

Yep. I think the Citeh coversation went something like ;

Sponsor (linked to Etihad) ... "So, how much are your running costs ?"
Citeh ... "Oh, about £150m a year"
Sponsor ... "Will a cheque do ?"

The FA told them to feck off.
FA ... "Feck off".

So does this Fair Market Value take into account Man Utd's "Official Diesel Engine Partner" (Honestly!) giving them more money than we're getting for our Shirt & Stadium sponsorship combined?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Weren't Hafnia something to do with Hampers? (I haven't googled, promise)

Clesrly you haven't !! Nope .... it was more in your line. Well, food anywsy.

LK, you may be thinking of Peter Johnson: Park Foods hamper magnate who was simultaneously chairman of Everton and Tranmere - coincidentally, if I recall correctly, at about the time that Everton signed Tranmere goalkeeper Steve Simonsen for up to £3.3m. When the FA tapped him on the shoulder about the joint ownership, he installed his then girlfriend in the Trampmere chair.

[Worthy4England]

so - the boffins in charge of FFP are aware of this workaround...

Yes - they have the concept of Fair Market Value (FMV) now in the FFP "rulebook"...

Yep. I think the Citeh coversation went something like ;

Sponsor (linked to Etihad) ... "So, how much are your running costs ?"
Citeh ... "Oh, about £150m a year"
Sponsor ... "Will a cheque do ?"

The FA told them to feck off.
FA ... "Feck off".

So does this Fair Market Value take into account Man Utd's "Official Diesel Engine Partner" (Honestly!) giving them more money than we're getting for our Shirt & Stadium sponsorship combined?

Don't shoot the messenger.

The rules are different for the Prem than the Championship (I think), but the concept of Fair Market Value still exists, probably administered by the same people who got a 16 grand watch, in a trinket bag.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Meanwhile, back in Blighty:

CHAMPIONSHIP CLUBS AGREE NEW FFP RULES
At an EGM at Derby County, Championship clubs have agreed a new set of ‘Profitability and Sustainability’ Regulations that will bring the division’s approach to Financial Fair Play into line with that used by the Premier League.

From the beginning of the 2016/17 season, Championship clubs will have their financial performance continuously monitored over a three season timeframe and will be permitted to lose up to £15m during that period without having to be prescriptive over how that loss will be funded. In addition, they will be permitted to lose more than £15m, but not more than an aggregate of £39m (compared to an equivalent figure of £105m in the Premier League) but will be subject to additional regulation when doing so. This will include providing evidence of Secure Owner Funding and Future Financial Information for the two seasons ahead.

A club that moves between the Premier League and Championship will be assessed in accordance with the average allowance that is permitted in the relevant division (for example, a club that had played two seasons in the Championship and one in the Premier League would have a maximum permitted loss of £61m - consisting of one season at £35m and two at £13m).

Clubs also agreed transitional arrangements for the period leading up the introduction of the new regulations in 2016. These can be summarised as follows:
The existing Championship FFP framework will remain in place for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 seasons.
Any sanctions for accounts relating to the 2013/14 season will continue to take effect as intended (and in accordance with the amounts specified at the time).
The maximum deviation under the regulations will remain at £6m for 2014/15 and will increase to £13m in 2015/16, in line with the maximum loss (£39m over 3 seasons) permitted under the new rules.
Following the Championship’s decision, The Board of The Football League has been given a mandate by its clubs to complete a new financial solidarity arrangement with the Premier League in accordance with that currently under discussion between the two leagues.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I wouldn't be against a takeover happening but it's be important to have a good chairman if it does, one who isn't just a businessman but knows and understands football. We don't have a huge fanbase at Bolton but given the amount of TV revenue that the Premier League offers, we must be an attraction proposition to any potential buyers due to our stadium and facilities, so I can see why we would attract investment. When you think that PSG paid £50m for David Luiz, £40m really isn't a lot for our whole club so I'm excited by the prospect of it but it has to be done right, which means solid financial backing and a good chairman to overlook everything.

As much as he's blamed for some things on here, I'd be happy with Gartside being our chairman if we were taken over. I think we'd need that level of experience to make sure any transitional period goes smoothly but as long as he was still here, I'd be very optimistic.

I'd have been happier knowing Eddie Davies knew a bit more about football instead of being guided by a clown, we may still well have been in the Premier league but for Gartside's inaction.

Bobo out!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'd be intrigued to hear our financially-minded posters' views on the new FFP-style rules the Football League waved through yesterday. (I'd've posted more about it but I was busy. Stoopid work.)

There's more on it, in typical polite BBC style, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29940463" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems to me that they've simply extended the theoretical credit limit per club from £3m per season (or £6m with owner investment) to £39m over three seasons. (Unless you have a season in the Prem, in which case it's £51m over the three seasons; if you have two seasons in the Prem, £63m over the three seasons.) The three-year thing means clubs also get to go over budget without imminent auditing.

All sounds like a credit-card charter to me. And what's more annoying for us, in a way, is that it doesn't solve our immediate problem 'cos it doesn't come in until 2016/17 - meaning that clubs who come down from the PL *next* season can carry on splurging.

Hmm.

[Prufrock]

Sounds to me that they've bottled it. I get that some people are against it, but once they went with it they should have stuck with it.

[LeverEnd]

I'd be intrigued to hear our financially-minded posters' views on the new FFP-style rules the Football League waved through yesterday. (I'd've posted more about it but I was busy. Stoopid work.)

There's more on it, in typical polite BBC style, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29940463" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems to me that they've simply extended the theoretical credit limit per club from £3m per season (or £6m with owner investment) to £39m over three seasons. (Unless you have a season in the Prem, in which case it's £51m over the three seasons; if you have two seasons in the Prem, £63m over the three seasons.) The three-year thing means clubs also get to go over budget without imminent auditing.

All sounds like a credit-card charter to me. And what's more annoying for us, in a way, is that it doesn't solve our immediate problem 'cos it doesn't come in until 2016/17 - meaning that clubs who come down from the PL *next* season can carry on splurging.

Hmm.

Well I'm certainly not a financial football fan but it looks lie it will encourage clubs to gamble for 2 years with fingers crossed that they get up before they are judged.
Anyway it's starting to look like we can live within out means and still be successful as long as we have a positive manager who has a personality. So balls to FFP.

[plymouth wanderer]

So this was all bullocks then??

[CAPSLOCK]

Anyway it's starting to look like we can live within out means and still be successful as long as we have a positive manager who has a personality. So balls to FFP.

We aren't living within our means

Our income is about 7 million, give or take

If our only outgoings were player wages, we'd be able to pay 7k a week to 20 players

Now, seeing as Mark Davies, Bogdan, Wheater, Lee and Spearing will be on nearer 20k, theyre potentially costing us around 5 million

So no, we are not living within our means

Note - the last accounts actually had 'staff costs' at 37 million - down from 55 million the year before
Aye, 37 million - 30 million above what we are allowed to spend

[a1]

it's illegal anyway.

if i were us, i'd brinkmanship them towards a proper collective bargaining agreement. cant see leeds types living on the same budget as yeovil.

but wat'll happen is it'll go to court then get fecked off as against free trade by european court.

like the bosman.

[LeverEnd]

Anyway it's starting to look like we can live within out means and still be successful as long as we have a positive manager who has a personality. So balls to FFP.

We aren't living within our means

Our income is about 7 million, give or take

If our only outgoings were player wages, we'd be able to pay 7k a week to 20 players

Now, seeing as Mark Davies, Bogdan, Wheater, Lee and Spearing will be on nearer 20k, theyre potentially costing us around 5 million

So no, we are not living within our means

Note - the last accounts actually had 'staff costs' at 37 million - down from 55 million the year before
Aye, 37 million - 30 million above what we are allowed to spend

Well yeah, we're not really I'm sure. Just meant relatively, and within the constraints of FFP, which we're told we are. I have no further interest than that in the financial side. Was a response to suggestions that we were fecked because of FFP and heading for oblivion, and that replacing Freedman was pointless because no one else could do any better etc etc.

[EverSoYouri]

So this was all bullocks then??

Thought this shouldn't be allowed to pass without a

[TKIZ!]

Comes from the Mail I know but makes for not great reading as we're one of the nine clubs facing sanctions:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... nship.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Riviman]

If we are banned from transfers in January then signing the likes of Eidur and even Heskey, both out of contract, makes even more sense as I assume they aren't classified as "transfers".