Time to go

[Ianmooreslovechild]

fergie out!!!

£24mill new signing and still no goals... tsssk

I wonder if fergie will keep the same 11 players in the same formation for their next game? And refuse to start van persie until Xmas?

[BWFC_Insane]

So g'wan, give me a clue how fooked we are.

We have to get promoted this season, or our budget will indeed equal the likes of Burnley.

Under those circumstances, I'm looking for a bit of inspiration.

I need to know who it is thats going to stop that. Because its abundantly clear that from now on (much like Wenger at Arsenal, and look at the shit from know-nowts that gets thrown at him) we are now working to a policy of balancing the books. Thats it. Little, indeed probably no more borrowing-based spending. With a general intention of paying Uncle Eddie back in the meantime. The good times have gone.

Just to be clear, whilst the rest is no doubt correct, Gartside was clear at the fans forum that we are not paying Eddie back and he doesn't want it back. He also said that there are interest repayments to him put through the books for tax reasons, but in reality we are not paying it.

If we aren't going to pay Eddie back, that means that we have no issues with debt then, right?

That was exactly the point Gartside was making.......

[thebish]

fergie out!!!

£24mill new signing and still no goals... tsssk

Despite the fact I really hate Everton, i smiled at that result... broadly...

y'know - I thought I might - but try as I might - I am totally unmoved and NOT interested in the premiership merry-go-round - it didn't even really register much of a "ooh that's an upset" flicker of interest...

i don't five a toss which manchester club has the upper hand or who else makes up the so-called top four..

if arsenal winning it makes GG happy - then fair enough - but I don't really give much of a toss about the ins-and-outs of it or the week- by-week drama...

this has become more apparent as year succeeds to year...

[BWFC_Insane]

fergie out!!!

£24mill new signing and still no goals... tsssk

Despite the fact I really hate Everton, i smiled at that result... broadly...

y'know - I thought I might - but try as I might - I am totally unmoved and NOT interested in the premiership merry-go-round - it didn't even really register much of a "ooh that's an upset" flicker of interest...

i don't five a toss which manchester club has the upper hand or who else makes up the so-called top four..

if arsenal winning it makes GG happy - then fair enough - but I don't really give much of a toss about the ins-and-outs of it or the week- by-week drama...

this has become more apparent as year succeeds to year...

I've enjoyed the opening premiership games far more than I would had we been in it. I can watch it for what it is now, without worrying that we're playing utd/citeh/wigan next week and also without being desperate for the sides near us in the table to lose.

Citeh's game with Southampton was outstanding, from both sides, and last night's was a good watch too.

Anyone but Man U winning is fine by me, but as entertainment with no emotional investment its a pretty decent watch at times.

[thebish]

I've enjoyed the opening premiership games far more than I would had we been in it. I can watch it for what it is now, without worrying that we're playing utd/citeh/wigan next week and also without being desperate for the sides near us in the table to lose.

Citeh's game with Southampton was outstanding, from both sides, and last night's was a good watch too.

Anyone but Man U winning is fine by me, but as entertainment with no emotional investment its a pretty decent watch at times.

I think my problem is that I am not really a FOOTBALL fan - I wouldn't watch random football for entertainment.. I'm only really a bolton fan... (and that's not about entertainment!!)

[Worthy4England]

Gartside was clear at the fans forum that we are not paying Eddie back and he doesn't want it back. He also said that there are interest repayments to him put through the books for tax reasons, but in reality we are not paying it.

He did indeed, and it requires someone with a better understanding of corporate finance than I (Yes, Worthington. You!) to explain it. Garty also said that the money we owe ED is owed to Moonstone Investments? Garty said that this was a trust, but as far as I could see when I got home - they build collapsible Brazilian shopping malls. He went on to say that if ED wants to take his money out then he has to put the same amount back in. How the feck does that work?

It's largely about trust law (and the tax implications thereof) and dependent on the Terms of the Trust. So as quick as I can on this one, a trust has a settlor (the person setting it up), trustee(s) (the person(s) administering it) and beneficiaries (the entities that benefit from the terms of the trust). It can be revocable (can be changed by the settlor) or irrevocable (can't be easily changed by the settlor) and can be fixed interest (terms can't be changed by the trustee) or discretionary (terms can be changed by the Trustee).

The tax benefits are generally dependent on where the settlor sits within the structure (as the main tax purpose of offshore trusts is generally for someone to be able to say "it's nowt to do with me" for tax purposes - or to gain company tax efficiency in the locality the trust is in), as a settlor might just be the settlor, and/or could also be a trustee and/or could also be a beneficiary. If the settlor is just the settlor and it's an irrevocable trust, then it's fairly easy to say "nowt to do with me"

Our debt is indeed owed to Moonstone Investments in the British Virgin Islands rather than ED. ED doesn't lend to us directly nor own us directly - we're owned by Fildraw Private Trust who I think are based out of Bermuda, but we need to have an "onshore" company to run Bolton - which is where Burnden Leisure come in. Fildraw Private Trust is possibly where ED sticks all his assets, but it could be a shell just for the football club - generally private trusts are set up to protect assets and to act as a black box, that nasty authorities can't see into and also usually in places where it's very difficult for people to take legal action against you in some sort of private (or public) capacity - rather than in a commercial capacity where you're often covered under Company limitations. There's also often a different burden of proof threshold in the offshore locality.

So Moonstone bung us cash, which we pay the interest back on, ED as an IOM resident would need to pay tax on it, if he received it direct as income from his "non-resident entity" under general anti-avoidance legislation as a beneficiary. So taking anything out of Moonstone probably wouldn't make sense, and to be honest, he's probably no need to.

I understand, in a way not directly related to the paragraphs above, that is is possible to structure your offshore accounts so that transfers from entity A to entity B might be difficult for those who might want to know, to find out. Also Moonstone can make other investments in say entities C and D, if it's a trust too, it could make payments to beneficiaries or potentially another Trust (as a beneficiary). So understanding how much entity A or entity B are worth, on the occasion, say of Capital Gains Tax arising or a Tax Return needing to be compiled, might prove very difficult - especially if entities C and D etc. were involved and none of them are legally required to publish Accounts. It's also possible that the beneficiaries of entities C and D might not be very clear to people who might want to know, if they were also Private Trusts, as the only documentation pertaining to them might be owned by the settlor and no other bugger other than the trustee, is necessarily privy to them.

So an offshore trust makes a payment to an offshore bank account - everyone but the tax man is happy, and if a person, say a beneficiary, had access to that offshore bank account and associated credit/debit cards, it's then really, really difficult for anyone onshore to work out what the fcek is going on, other than you're walking around looking fairly happy.

This does not constitute financial advice and I'm not an financial advisor.

[Lord Kangana]

So g'wan, give me a clue how fooked we are.

We have to get promoted this season, or our budget will indeed equal the likes of Burnley.

Under those circumstances, I'm looking for a bit of inspiration.

I need to know who it is thats going to stop that. Because its abundantly clear that from now on (much like Wenger at Arsenal, and look at the shit from know-nowts that gets thrown at him) we are now working to a policy of balancing the books. Thats it. Little, indeed probably no more borrowing-based spending. With a general intention of paying Uncle Eddie back in the meantime. The good times have gone.

Just to be clear, whilst the rest is no doubt correct, Gartside was clear at the fans forum that we are not paying Eddie back and he doesn't want it back. He also said that there are interest repayments to him put through the books for tax reasons, but in reality we are not paying it.

If we aren't going to pay Eddie back, that means that we have no issues with debt then, right?

That was exactly the point Gartside was making.......

Let me walk you through this really slowly, because you may have missed some of it.

We have reduced our wage bill. Remember, we're taking the chairman's word as gospel, and he said we were going to do this anyway, regardless of the division we are in. So 1) We're actively reducing the wage bill

Secondly, we are now spending less than previously. I know you love to pretend how much we could potentially maybe possibly get for this and that player, but the fact remains that we are having to balance the books on transfers now. There is no more gorging on defecit spending.

And thirdly, and very much most importantly, the previous decades success was funded by defecit spending from our benefactor. Just so I can try and understand what the f*ck goes through your mind, what do you think will replace this income stream? Debt accrual?

[BWFC_Insane]

LK, I honestly have no idea what you are arguing about? Merely pointed out that as was said at the fans forum, we have cut the wage bill, are looking to invest our money in younger assets who have a profit/sell on value and trying to be more self sufficient. In no way have I disagreed with any of that.

I only made the point that Gartside said, very clearly, and somewhat forcefully that Eddie isn't after his money back we are not paying it back,he is still investing, but that the club needs to try and become more self sufficient.

I don't actually see what you're trying to argue?

And to add to that Coyle himself said that had we been in the premiership this season, we'd have had this squad but have been able to add to it "with some significant money for some "very very good young players", but going down cost us that chance."

[Prufrock]

I think what LK is saying is that we have consistently made a loss for the last ten years. We don't have to pay that back, fine, but Eddie hasn't got the money to let us keep making that loss, so our budget has shrunk. That, or we end up with real debt, we do actually have to pay back, and thusly are screwed either way.

[boltonboris]

I think what LK is saying is that we have consistently made a loss for the last ten years. We don't have to pay that back, fine, but Eddie hasn't got the money to let us keep making that loss, so our budget has shrunk. That, or we end up with real debt, we do actually have to pay back, and thusly are screwed either way.

I think the counter argument to that is BWFCi is saying that the board are aware of this, so are trying to ensure that the club becomes self sufficient BEFORE Davies' pot o' gold disappears.

It'll be easier for us to do that in the Premier League though.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think what LK is saying is that we have consistently made a loss for the last ten years. We don't have to pay that back, fine, but Eddie hasn't got the money to let us keep making that loss, so our budget has shrunk. That, or we end up with real debt, we do actually have to pay back, and thusly are screwed either way.

Yes and I get that. However, I'd ask how many clubs below the premiership (and indeed in it....) don't make a loss....

I think its been made clear that there is a strategy to operate in a different way. Under Allardyce we chucked high wages (relative to the time) at good players on frees, which was fine up till a point but meant we were essentially paying for the short term.

Under Megson we pursued an expensive and somewhat hit and miss transfer policy. Not always ensuring re-sale value. However, I still maintain that the only sellable assets we have are his signings.

Coyle has pursued a policy of signing younger players with "re-sale value". As it stands its a good plan. The trouble being that so far there is precious little signs that he would get his money back on many of his investments.

The club are clearly trying to move towards being self sufficient and hence not losing money that Eddie has to pay.

However, at the same time we've turned down a bid of around 6M for one of our players and added in several players this summer, with possibly and probably one more to come.

We are trying to be leaner. We are not however, restructuring the club in such a way that being an average league one side is all we can realistically expect and if we do that its pats on the back all round.

Everton have run on a more or less self sufficient policy for most of the time Moyes has been their manager. Some summers in fact its clear he's been frustrated. But they don't have an Eddie.....shows what a good manager can achieve.

[boltonboris]

The same Moyes who lost Pienaar on a free and bought him back for £4m?

The same Moyes who spent £12m on Diniyar Bilyaletdinov only to flog him for £3m two years later.

That Moyes?

He's spent money.. They were lucky they were sat on a £25m prodigy though in fairness..

[BWFC_Insane]

The same Moyes who lost Pienaar on a free and bought him back for £4m?

The same Moyes who spent £12m on Diniyar Bilyaletdinov only to flog him for £3m two years later.

That Moyes?

He's spent money.. They were lucky they were sat on a £25m prodigy though in fairness..

There will always be mistakes made. However all that is irrelevant when he's just robbed City of 20M for Rodwell.

[boltonboris]

True enough..

[Lord Kangana]

Might I also add, and this is from a position of relative ignorance, I don't know of any way a Ltd company (like Moonshift) can lend money to somebody else, and then write the whole thing off. Bearing in mind that a company's money does not belong to an individual, it belongs to the company. E Davies may well have loaned the money to the company, but that is an entirely seperate issue. I'm sure HMRC (or somebody) would have something to say if he closed the company down with a gaping hole in its accounts of £100m.

As I say, I don't know for certain, but I'd be surprised if its anywhere near as easy as is being suggested.

[Worthy4England]

Might I also add, and this is from a position of relative ignorance, I don't know of any way a Ltd company (like Moonshift) can lend money to somebody else, and then write the whole thing off. Bearing in mind that a company's money does not belong to an individual, it belongs to the company. E Davies may well have loaned the money to the company, but that is an entirely seperate issue. I'm sure HMRC (or somebody) would have something to say if he closed the company down with a gaping hole in its accounts of £100m.

As I say, I don't know for certain, but I'd be surprised if its anywhere near as easy as is being suggested.

That's where Offshore Trusts come in, they don't operate to the same rules. HMRC can't see if there's a gaping hole there as it's not obligated to produce any Accounts and HMRC have no jurisdiction to see what's in the box...

[Lord Kangana]

Whilst not gainsaying your point, why haven't they simply closed the company and written off the debt if there was simply no intention of paying all or part of the debt off? And why do they need to make small payments "for tax purposes"?

[Worthy4England]

Whilst not gainsaying your point, why haven't they simply closed the company and written off the debt if there was simply no intention of paying all or part of the debt off? And why do they need to make small payments "for tax purposes"?

They haven't closed it I suspect, because it could still be used to make further loans. Nobody has said that ED is going to stop doing that - just not to the same extent maybe as there has been. We also don't know whether it's a special/single purpose vehicle (SPV) or has other functions...

What's the bit about small payments for tax purposes? Might have missed that bit...

[Lord Kangana]

I thought that was what BWFci was saying was said at the Fan's Forum?

And am I not right in saying that Bolton Wanderer's would have to pay tax on the money as income (rather than none at the moment, because its a loan) if the company is closed with the debt outstanding?

[BWFC_Insane]

I thought that was what BWFci was saying was said at the Fan's Forum?

And am I not right in saying that Bolton Wanderer's would have to pay tax on the money as income (rather than none at the moment, because its a loan) if the company is closed with the debt outstanding?

Gartside said there are £5M annual loan repayments that are recorded in the accounts, but they are not actually paid.

Sounded dodgy to me too! But can't be if he's saying it at a fans forum.