Xpro

[LeverEnd]

Anyone seen Sam Hamman recently?

[BWFC_Insane]

Interesting article this. Seems knowledgeable. Highly critical of Eddie Davies over the past few years whilst acknowledging his amazing efforts in earlier times.

About where I am I think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 61016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

Interesting article this. Seems knowledgeable. Highly critical of Eddie Davies over the past few years whilst acknowledging his amazing efforts in earlier times.

About where I am I think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 61016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically confirms what many think, Gartside was a large part of our problems!

[Gudnib]

Interesting article this. Seems knowledgeable. Highly critical of Eddie Davies over the past few years whilst acknowledging his amazing efforts in earlier times.

About where I am I think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 61016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically confirms what many think, Gartside was a large part of our problems!

An interesting article on the whole but I found the scornful derision of Eddie Davies fancying a pasty when he visited the Reebok a bit unreasonable. Not too much to ask is it when you have spent a nine-figure sum on supporting the club.
It made me a bit cautious about some of the other stuff in what had all the appearance of a well-researched article.
Its plain enough that ED has been open to offers for a lot longer than the past few months so we await to see the intentions and the colour of the money of those who are said to be interested.

[Worthy4England]

Interesting article this. Seems knowledgeable. Highly critical of Eddie Davies over the past few years whilst acknowledging his amazing efforts in earlier times.

About where I am I think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 61016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not highly critical of Eddie Davies largely - other than some anecdotal shit about pasties - it's highly critical of Bolton Wanderers. We've been saying for years on here that the cut in the wage bill didn't seem to match the Accounts nor the views of the people saying they'd "slashed" it. Megson said he'd cut it, but it didn't seem to go down any - in fact it went up. Coyle said he was cutting it and probably did over his last year but not by anything that looked near enough. Freedman said he'd cut it and almost certainly did, but still way too high.

But you have to put some of these decisions in their correct time context to see if they make any sense - they don't with lazy journalistic hindsight. Andrews for example signed in the summer when we went down, I really believe the Club hierarchy, much like some on here, thought we'd go straight back up. It'd be a refreshing change, I think one poster told us. There were the press statements from Gartside (that the year before said we couldn't afford to go down) saying we couldn't afford not to go straight back up. Well he was right on that one.

But once we'd taken that gamble - I assume driven by Gartside as the day to day administrator, and backed by Davies (otherwise we couldn't have done it), it was a shit or bust gamble. Our wage bill was still £37m at the 2013 Accounts - so end of the 2012/13 season.

What gets me about all this is that post Allardyce, all managers have been backed well (clearly too well) in terms of overall wage bill. Even when you look at the first slasher (probably Freedman, with maybe a little bit of Coyle), the wage bill was still right up there with the promotion chasing teams. Had one of them managed to get us to a position in line with the funding they had - I'm looking at you Coyle - we might not have been having this conversation now.

Like in 2001 - I suspect it would have only postponed the inevitable rather than cured it - but lets be honest, when we talk about "the early days" of Eddie Davies, it was never on a profit making basis - not once. So the early days are little different from today - Davies put money in and we're fine, he stops and there isn't anything like a sustainable business model.

Strikes me folks were happy to see us in the Prem, but would now want to re-write the course of that history on the basis of where we are now. Great hindsight isn't it. For me, I'll take those Premiership years and cherish them thanks.

[LeverEnd]

I don't think it's highly critical of ED either. It challenges the 'nice Uncle Eddie' image peddled by many and acknowledges that while he delivered some great times for which he has been rightly praised, he's recently mismanaged the club into a right mess. Gartside should take much of the blame but like ED himself is supposed have said, 'Remember who's boss'.
A very well-balanced piece I thought.

[thebish]

Interesting article this. Seems knowledgeable. Highly critical of Eddie Davies over the past few years whilst acknowledging his amazing efforts in earlier times.

About where I am I think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 61016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not highly critical of Eddie Davies largely - other than some anecdotal shit about pasties - it's highly critical of Bolton Wanderers. We've been saying for years on here that the cut in the wage bill didn't seem to match the Accounts nor the views of the people saying they'd "slashed" it. Megson said he'd cut it, but it didn't seem to go down any - in fact it went up. Coyle said he was cutting it and probably did over his last year but not by anything that looked near enough. Freedman said he'd cut it and almost certainly did, but still way too high.

But you have to put some of these decisions in their correct time context to see if they make any sense - they don't with lazy journalistic hindsight. Andrews for example signed in the summer when we went down, I really believe the Club hierarchy, much like some on here, thought we'd go straight back up. It'd be a refreshing change, I think one poster told us. There were the press statements from Gartside (that the year before said we couldn't afford to go down) saying we couldn't afford not to go straight back up. Well he was right on that one.

But once we'd taken that gamble - I assume driven by Gartside as the day to day administrator, and backed by Davies (otherwise we couldn't have done it), it was a shit or bust gamble. Our wage bill was still £37m at the 2013 Accounts - so end of the 2012/13 season.

What gets me about all this is that post Allardyce, all managers have been backed well (clearly too well) in terms of overall wage bill. Even when you look at the first slasher (probably Freedman, with maybe a little bit of Coyle), the wage bill was still right up there with the promotion chasing teams. Had one of them managed to get us to a position in line with the funding they had - I'm looking at you Coyle - we might not have been having this conversation now.

Like in 2001 - I suspect it would have only postponed the inevitable rather than cured it - but lets be honest, when we talk about "the early days" of Eddie Davies, it was never on a profit making basis - not once. So the early days are little different from today - Davies put money in and we're fine, he stops and there isn't anything like a sustainable business model.

Strikes me folks were happy to see us in the Prem, but would now want to re-write the course of that history on the basis of where we are now. Great hindsight isn't it. For me, I'll take those Premiership years and cherish them thanks.

amen!

[BWFC_Insane]

Interesting article this. Seems knowledgeable. Highly critical of Eddie Davies over the past few years whilst acknowledging his amazing efforts in earlier times.

About where I am I think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 61016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not highly critical of Eddie Davies largely - other than some anecdotal shit about pasties - it's highly critical of Bolton Wanderers. We've been saying for years on here that the cut in the wage bill didn't seem to match the Accounts nor the views of the people saying they'd "slashed" it. Megson said he'd cut it, but it didn't seem to go down any - in fact it went up. Coyle said he was cutting it and probably did over his last year but not by anything that looked near enough. Freedman said he'd cut it and almost certainly did, but still way too high.

But you have to put some of these decisions in their correct time context to see if they make any sense - they don't with lazy journalistic hindsight. Andrews for example signed in the summer when we went down, I really believe the Club hierarchy, much like some on here, thought we'd go straight back up. It'd be a refreshing change, I think one poster told us. There were the press statements from Gartside (that the year before said we couldn't afford to go down) saying we couldn't afford not to go straight back up. Well he was right on that one.

But once we'd taken that gamble - I assume driven by Gartside as the day to day administrator, and backed by Davies (otherwise we couldn't have done it), it was a shit or bust gamble. Our wage bill was still £37m at the 2013 Accounts - so end of the 2012/13 season.

What gets me about all this is that post Allardyce, all managers have been backed well (clearly too well) in terms of overall wage bill. Even when you look at the first slasher (probably Freedman, with maybe a little bit of Coyle), the wage bill was still right up there with the promotion chasing teams. Had one of them managed to get us to a position in line with the funding they had - I'm looking at you Coyle - we might not have been having this conversation now.

Like in 2001 - I suspect it would have only postponed the inevitable rather than cured it - but lets be honest, when we talk about "the early days" of Eddie Davies, it was never on a profit making basis - not once. So the early days are little different from today - Davies put money in and we're fine, he stops and there isn't anything like a sustainable business model.

Strikes me folks were happy to see us in the Prem, but would now want to re-write the course of that history on the basis of where we are now. Great hindsight isn't it. For me, I'll take those Premiership years and cherish them thanks.

I think it makes the point that Eddie was 'the boss' and made sure folk knew it.

Which is fine when he was covering the gap in expenditure and income. But it sounds like when he decided to stop covering that, he decided the resultant problems weren't 'his problem'. The issue being that it sounds like the tap was turned off suddenly rather than with prior warning. Hence the need to secure riskier high interest loans.

[thebish]

i think it's possible you see what you want to see then claim it as backing for your Eddie should be horse-whipped crusade. The article isn't REALLY about where you are - not the way you've expressed yourself on here, anyway - it's a long way from being that!

[BWFC_Insane]

i think it's possible you see what you want to see then claim it as backing for your Eddie should be horse-whipped crusade. The article isn't REALLY about where you are - not the way you've expressed yourself on here, anyway - it's a long way from being that!

You've gone a bit Internet binary argument there. All along I've said Eddie deserves huge praise for his financial backing. But he also needs to take a share of the blame for the current mess. Being that he is owner, chief decision maker and kingpin and all that.

That is all I'm saying. I'd be very happy with an Eddie statue going up outside the ground once this is sorted to thank him for his amazing contribution. Still wouldn't mean he isn't somewhat responsible for this 'perilous position'.

[Worthy4England]

I know you'd like to point the blame somewhere, but which bit is indicating little prior warning? The statements in the Accounts from 2012, 2013 and 2014 etc?

[thebish]

i think it's possible you see what you want to see then claim it as backing for your Eddie should be horse-whipped crusade. The article isn't REALLY about where you are - not the way you've expressed yourself on here, anyway - it's a long way from being that!

You've gone a bit Internet binary argument there. All along I've said Eddie deserves huge praise for his financial backing. But he also needs to take a share of the blame for the current mess. Being that he is owner, chief decision maker and kingpin and all that.

That is all I'm saying. I'd be very happy with an Eddie statue going up outside the ground once this is sorted to thank him for his amazing contribution. Still wouldn't mean he isn't somewhat responsible for this 'perilous position'.

so - we can agree a statue - but it has to bear the inscription "Eddie - did some good stuff, but ultimately responsible for our demise?"

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Apparently Holdsworth was at the ground today.

[thebish]

it has to be considered that our current form is a very, very, very clever strategy to smoke out investors who are really serious about wanting to burn their cash in the Wanderers cash-burning-furnace.

Lenny might well be in a secret plot with the board to engineer catastrophic results - so that we are in such a position that only investors seriously commited to the cause would still be in the game!

when the deal is tied up - he'll put his game-face on and playoffs will beckon...

how else do you explain a dobbie/madine/heskey strike-force?

YHIHF....

[Shutt666]

Or in cahoots with Holdsworth to get the price to rock bottom.

YHIHS

[Gudnib]

I know you'd like to point the blame somewhere, but which bit is indicating little prior warning? The statements in the Accounts from 2012, 2013 and 2014 etc?

Exactly. Warning, warning, warning. How many warning notices were needed? The board could have decided to do what Blackpool did. Would that have been the right decision? Of course recruitment mistakes were made (it happens in every football club) but what did supporters really want, cost-cutting on unprecedented scales or attempts to hand the club over as a going concern to trustworthy individuals?

[StaffsTrotter]

Apparently Holdsworth was at the ground today.

Picture in BN. http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... Wanderers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posters on Wanderersways seem to have identified who the guy is sat next to him.

[Worthy4England]

Apparently Holdsworth was at the ground today.

Picture in BN. http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... Wanderers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posters on Wanderersways seem to have identified who the guy is sat next to him.

Have they identified whether he has a bob or two?

[Enoch]

Apparently Holdsworth was at the ground today.

Picture in BN. http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... Wanderers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posters on Wanderersways seem to have identified who the guy is sat next to him.

Have they identified whether he has a bob or two?

... or he's just two bob!

[bobo the clown]

^^ reconing it's a Jonathan Disley. Self made millionaire gangster, "King of Marbella" and jailed in May '13 for bank fraud. I guess he could be out now but not sure he'd meet MY 'fit & proper person' test.

Nowt to do with all that fraud & jailbird stuff ... it hardly makes him George Oghani, now does it !? but coz he's a mate of Barbara Windsor.

Luckily for him the FA tests seem less rigorous than you might anticipate.

If you Google him it does look like him but Jeez.