Which muppet can we appoint next?

[Athertonian]

Asset stripping has started then?

[BWFC_Insane]

Asset stripping has started then?

Reducing costs because our income has been shot to pieces. This is not asset stripping.

Sad for those losing their jobs but very necessary.

[BWFC_Insane]

Interesting tweeted titbit from Iles: "Should have a better idea of next #bwfc manager after Fulham game. Only one man met by both owners so far - but a few others possible."

But how can this possibly be ?

Everyone (well LOV & BWFCI) knows that KA & DH don't get on, they don't agree on anything, they don't speak to each other and they make decisions individually never as one !

More to the point how can it be when Anderson said last week that the new manager was already set...or are you doubting what he said now?

[Harry Genshaw]

^ didn't I read somewhere the other day that Anderson said he had decided on a new manager but then got another flurry of applications that caused him to have a rethink?

[BWFC_Insane]

^ didn't I read somewhere the other day that Anderson said he had decided on a new manager but then got another flurry of applications that caused him to have a rethink?

No. He said that his original statement about a month ago about interviews and imminent appointment changed because of a flurry of applications.

But that now the manager and board was set. He said that in last weeks program notes.

I await the announcement....

[thebish]

^ didn't I read somewhere the other day that Anderson said he had decided on a new manager but then got another flurry of applications that caused him to have a rethink?

No. He said that his original statement about a month ago about interviews and imminent appointment changed because of a flurry of applications.

But that now the manager and board was set. He said that in last weeks program notes.

I await the announcement....

can you do that in silence?

[Bruce Rioja]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

[Worthy4England]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

The last accounts had us with 338 staff on the books 64 of whom were allegedly football players. Given we've not submitted any Accounts for a while, that number is now 2 years old, but still a fairly sizable number of non footballers @ 274...

[thebish]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

aye - save the chaplain!

[Bruce Rioja]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

The last accounts had us with 338 staff on the books 64 of whom were allegedly football players. Given we've not submitted any Accounts for a while, that number is now 2 years old, but still a fairly sizable number of non footballers @ 274...

And that 247 earn what exactly? The numbers game here is purely fiscal, as well you know.

[Bruce Rioja]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

aye - save the chaplain!

We don't pay him, do we? I'd pay him personally if I thought we had a prayer.

[Worthy4England]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

The last accounts had us with 338 staff on the books 64 of whom were allegedly football players. Given we've not submitted any Accounts for a while, that number is now 2 years old, but still a fairly sizable number of non footballers @ 274...

And that 247 earn what exactly? The numbers game here is purely fiscal, as well you know.

I dunno, but 30 on 10k per annum, would save a chunk. It's clearly not the biggest part of the problem, but I think we're way past £300k per annum not being very important, despite some immovable objects allegedly being on 1.5 times that per week.

[Bruce Rioja]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

The last accounts had us with 338 staff on the books 64 of whom were allegedly football players. Given we've not submitted any Accounts for a while, that number is now 2 years old, but still a fairly sizable number of non footballers @ 274...

And that 247 earn what exactly? The numbers game here is purely fiscal, as well you know.

I dunno, but 30 on 10k per annum, would save a chunk. It's clearly not the biggest part of the problem, but I think we're way past £300k per annum not being very important, despite some immovable objects allegedly being on 1.5 times that per week.

OK, so let's get into the macroeconomics. I think that BWFC actually needs to employ more staff in minor commercial capacities in order to make itself more cost efficient.

[BWFC_Insane]

Someone I know who works for Burnley reckons we have almost 5 times as many non footballing staff on the payroll here. I'm sure a lot of that is down to the hotel but not all. And frankly we will be a league one club and will have to run a league one staff wherever possible.

Harsh but ultimately true that the club on and off the field need cutbacks.

[Worthy4England]

I'm not at all sure who they employ doing what to be honest. They appear to be looking at revenue generation too, from events like the gig that's planned, so I guess it's all part n parcel.

[Worthy4England]

Someone I know who works for Burnley reckons we have almost 5 times as many non footballing staff on the payroll here. I'm sure a lot of that is down to the hotel but not all. And frankly we will be a league one club and will have to run a league one staff wherever possible.

Harsh but ultimately true that the club on and off the field need cutbacks.

2001 we employed 89 non-footballers including the hotel..

[bobo the clown]

^^ In 2016 we employed many non-footballers in the actual fckg playing squad !!!

[malcd1]

Someone I know who works for Burnley reckons we have almost 5 times as many non footballing staff on the payroll here. I'm sure a lot of that is down to the hotel but not all. And frankly we will be a league one club and will have to run a league one staff wherever possible.

Harsh but ultimately true that the club on and off the field need cutbacks.

2001 we employed 89 non-footballers including the hotel..

BWFC do an awful lot of work 'in the community'. They have qualified trainers (in addition to the BWFC football teams coaching staff) who visit most, if not all, of the primary schools in Bolton training 5 to 11 years old kids. I think there might be a contribution (£2 comes to mind) for some after school sessions. The same trainers run school holiday football camps, which have been held at the Lostock pitches and also on the Macron. I have done a quick calculation based on the head count versus the number of trainers and I don't believe the money covers the staff wages.

They are extremely well run by some good people. My 7 year old certainly loves going. As I have not been sent invitations for the training camps in June I suspect the community football coaches will be affected.

[Worthy4England]

Would be sad, if good stuff like that got cut, but I guess if needs must, then they must.

[danardif1]

Needs must indeed, it's great that the club was able to have these programs when it could afford to (and even in the last few years when it couldnt') but if they are cut it doesn't mean that they couldn't come back in the future...