The Debt.

[Lord Kangana]

I couldn't give a shite what debt/fiddle/profit/whatever he's done over the years. Eddie brought us Ivan Campo. For that reason alone I say name a stand after the man.

Ivan Campo or Eddie Davies?

[Jugs]

Whoever takes over has to make sure we never get in this situation again.

[Worthy4England]

I couldn't give a shite what debt/fiddle/profit/whatever he's done over the years. Eddie brought us Ivan Campo. For that reason alone I say name a stand after the man.

Ivan Campo or Eddie Davies?

Depending on who takes over, we still have three stands without anything other than compass point names...we could do both.

[Worthy4England]

Whoever takes over has to make sure we never get in this situation again.

I'm not quite sure what "situation" we're in with respect to money, particularly (other that we've reached our credit card limit).

Gartside had repeatedly said the main debt wasn't a problem. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a problem for a future administration of course...clearly the debt had a limit and we've, in all probability, exceeded it. The Club has (as far as I can recall Gartside saying) always listened to investment offers from as far back as mid-2000's certainly...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... rs-1639062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gudnib]

The timing of the Mirror article (July2007) is interesting. Eddie could plainly see the writing on the wall way back then. But you didn't need to be a financial or football genius to see that, despite his achievements, Sam had not left behind an especially healthy legacy.

[Jugs]

@ Worthy:

He has, but some sections of the support don't believe him.

Well, you hit it on the head becasuse you're not sure what the situaton is. It's a situation of uncertainty. Perhaps the "situation" where there's a lot of conjecture as to what "situation" we're in, with some folk predicting we're going to have to start all over again in the non-leagues (not someone from here before the bish starts with "but no one's said that!"), others predicting administration, others saying Eddie owes all the money to himself so wouldn't plunge us into admin but will struggle to find a buyer with all that debt, and so on. It would be nice to not have the fear of the unknown hanging over us. It would be nice to feel confident that we're stable.

To be honest, I've rarely commented on the financial situation, if at all. It's out of our hands, and if the conflicting views from the fans are anything to go by, few seem to know exactly what's been going on.

But the thing is, something has been going on, and it's caused a lot of uncertainty.

[Worthy4England]

The timing of the Mirror article (July2007) is interesting. Eddie could plainly see the writing on the wall way back then. But you didn't need to be a financial or football genius to see that, despite his achievements, Sam had not left behind an especially healthy legacy.

The biggest single year jump in debt was in 2010. Nearly £30m in one year. Between 2010 and 2014 Accounts, £119m was added to the debt position. I'm not sure you could attach much blame to BSA for that...Whilst there were still a couple of Allardyce players around in 2010, most of the galacticos had long since gone, and of the squad player that were left from the Allardyce era, I don't think any of the players left over that didn't sign a new Contract under Megson.

The debt position when Allardyce came in was £25m. It was £43m the year he left...

[Worthy4England]

@ Worthy:

He has, but some sections of the support don't believe him.

Well, you hit it on the head becasuse you're not sure what the situaton is. It's a situation of uncertainty. Perhaps the "situation" where there's a lot of conjecture as to what "situation" we're in, with some folk predicting we're going to have to start all over again in the non-leagues (not someone from here before the bish starts with "but no one's said that!"), others predicting administration, others saying Eddie owes all the money to himself so wouldn't plunge us into admin but will struggle to find a buyer with all that debt, and so on. It would be nice to not have the fear of the unknown hanging over us. It would be nice to feel confident that we're stable.

To be honest, I've rarely commented on the financial situation, if at all. It's out of our hands, and if the conflicting views from the fans are anything to go by, few seem to know exactly what's been going on.

But the thing is, something has been going on, and it's caused a lot of uncertainty.

I'm not sure what he could do about non-believers other than tell them it wasn't so, which he has done time and again, I think in one interview he said something like "I'm sick of telling everyone this but..."? He could hardly say "actually you're right" and I suspect "promise with sugar on" probably wouldn't have cut it.

But I'm sort of with you - if we take the debt conversation out to one side for a minute, there's still a problem. Davies wants to sell, I suspect is still keeping us afloat but not adding new cash in and as yet we don't have a buyer. On that front, I'm not sure they could say much anyhow due to non-disclosure and it'll take time. Whilst our league position is more than precarious, it would make little sense for us to seal the wrong deal quickly...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It would be nice to not have the fear of the unknown hanging over us. It would be nice to feel confident that we're stable.

It would. Trouble is, any takeover would bring its own uncertainty. Who's the new boss? What's in it for him? Where's the money coming from? Can he support this operating loss said to be £1m a month? Can he also spend more to help out? Considering we're running at a loss, should he spend more to help out? Which is why...

Whilst our league position is more than precarious, it would make little sense for us to seal the wrong deal quickly...

[BWFC_Insane]

The problem we have is purely that Davies can't or won't finance us further. We are very likely to be in this position again as any new owner is unlikely to live forever with limitless cash.

Hopefully though the general management will be better to prevent things from being as bad. But that is mainly down to management on the pitch above anything else.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The problem we have is purely that Davies can't or won't finance us further. We are very likely to be in this position again as any new owner is unlikely to live forever with limitless cash.

Hopefully though the general management will be better to prevent things from being as bad. But that is mainly down to management on the pitch above anything else.

Your first two sentences appear, to me, contradictory. The problem isn't purely that ED won't bankroll us if it won't go away with a new owner.

Which (to me) speaks to the bigger problem. Considering Freedman had to cut costs and Lennon even more so, why are we running at a £1m pcm loss?

[Jugs]

It would be nice to not have the fear of the unknown hanging over us. It would be nice to feel confident that we're stable.

It would. Trouble is, any takeover would bring its own uncertainty. Who's the new boss? What's in it for him? Where's the money coming from? Can he support this operating loss said to be £1m a month? Can he also spend more to help out? Considering we're running at a loss, should he spend more to help out?

You're such a worrier

No, point taken. But I didn't say that a takeover could ease all our worries immediately; it may take a few months for them to stabilise everyone's minds and calm down all the conjecture. Hopefully, this time next year we'll be in a sounder place.

[BWFC_Insane]

Football is increasingly reliant on clubs receiving cash injections from owners or investors. It is very difficult to compete without that. Realistically few clubs can generate turnovers to be self sufficient.

The mechanisms to do so generally revolve around a strong academy and selling young players for huge fees (see Southampton).

But in general Bolton to be successful now need someone pouring cash in. There isn't a magic answer. Find an owner prepared to invest in the team long term and we'll be reet.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Jugs - I know, wasn't arguing against you, just expanding the point.

BWFCi – I'd be intrigued to know how many Champo clubs operate at a loss. I know this is hardly news, but if football can't survive despite its popularity and TV money, we're all fecked.

[Hoboh]

Football is increasingly reliant on clubs receiving cash injections from owners or investors. It is very difficult to compete without that. Realistically few clubs can generate turnovers to be self sufficient.

The mechanisms to do so generally revolve around a strong academy and selling young players for huge fees (see Southampton).

But in general Bolton to be successful now need someone pouring cash in. There isn't a magic answer. Find an owner prepared to invest in the team long term and we'll be reet.

Seriously, if you took the club on would you do so without seeing something much better than current from the manager and players?
Sacking the manager and getting rid of the players is a massive initial cost to your investment after buying the club and after that it would be little more than a stab in the dark, a stadium, training facilities and all the rest do not turn out on a pitch and gain three points.
Little wonder we may end up a knock down price or whoopsie!

[Worthy4England]

Jugs - I know, wasn't arguing against you, just expanding the point.

BWFCi – I'd be intrigued to know how many Champo clubs operate at a loss. I know this is hardly news, but if football can't survive despite its popularity and TV money, we're all fecked.

20 of 24 according to David Conn

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... -wage-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the context of the thread though, I'd just like to say these are not real losses - they're all money making schemes for the respective owners, cleverly disguised.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Thanks, Worthy. Terrifying. Mug's game, innit.

[Andy Waller]

I couldn't give a shite what debt/fiddle/profit/whatever he's done over the years. Eddie brought us Ivan Campo. For that reason alone I say name a stand after the man.

Ivan Campo or Eddie Davies?

Depending on who takes over, we still have three stands without anything other than compass point names...we could do both.

The Campo Corner?

[BWFC_Insane]

Thanks, Worthy. Terrifying. Mug's game, innit.

Yes and some clubs will have players they can sell to turn over temporary profits a few may even do this long term. But to be successful on the field nowadays you more than likely need someone backing you.

Look at Villa, relatively big club I imagine one of the higher turnovers in the country. But have struggled of late as support from owner has dwindled.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Depending on who takes over, we still have three stands without anything other than compass point names...we could do both.

A pet peeve, from us and others. The rags, for instance, have gradually removed all their stand names (Main Stand, Stretford End, Scoreboard End, United Road Stand) - some understandably through circumstance, and I suppose they also renamed the URS after Mr Alex.

But we're as bad - the club doesn't even trumpet the Lofthouse Stand that much, often calling it the East Stand. I know a lot of it is in the hope a sponsor will fill the gap, but (1) they often don't and (2) can't it be both? The Bolton News Okocha Stand?