Bolton

[theroyaldyche]

Put 10 quid on bolton to win tonight at 11 to 1 with B365

Signed 9 players past couple of days. At home i think the bookies could have this wrong

All depends if any play

[theroyaldyche]

Goal disallowed last min

[Bosscat]

Gamblings a mugs game (unless you win of course )

[Chester Perry]

Following Steve Dale's nonsense delusional statement at Bury this evening I find that Bolton's new owners have appointed Phil Gartside's son as Chief Exec - you know because his father was so in touch with reality and kept them on a sensible level

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/1 ... g-officer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[FactualFrank]

Gamblings a mugs game (unless you win of course )

It's brilliant if it's Poker. Pays for my beer so can't complain.

[Bullabill]

Poker's not the same though is it?
Your own level of skill comes into play whereas betting on two poor football teams is entirely out of your control.

[Chester Perry]

It appears that Bolton have finally paid of it's debts to the Davies family - no not the £180m + that he wrote off the money Eddie lent them in the weeks before he died

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1 ... 6626159616

[Steve1956]

Wont be long and they will be ten years ahead of us again!

[Chester Perry]

It appears that Bolton have finally paid of it's debts to the Davies family - no not the £180m + that he wrote off the money Eddie lent them in the weeks before he died

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1 ... 6626159616

It appears Eddie Davies has been funding Bolton from the grave - more loans and monies have been written off by the family trust according to the latest accounts - will this club ever leave them alone

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 0895291392

[Leisure]

Are we really bothered. 10 years behind us.

[ClaretTony]

It appears Eddie Davies has been funding Bolton from the grave - more loans and monies have been written off by the family trust according to the latest accounts - will this club ever leave them alone

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 0895291392

Just when people thought they were standing on their own two feet.

[Chobulous]

Who cares, I mean unless you are a Bolton fan, who really gives a toss. I can guarantee that a good number of those muttering about Bolton’s financial shenanigans on this thread would suddenly get all sanctimonious about how it would be so bad for football if Bolton went to the wall. The same goes for Derby County.

Hypocrites.

[bfcjg]

Danger of benefactors when they either die or lose interest or get sanctioned.
Thank goodness we haven't got one and our owners put us into massive debt, we ought to be so grateful.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Who cares, I mean unless you are a Bolton fan, who really gives a toss. I can guarantee that a good number of those muttering about Bolton’s financial shenanigans on this thread would suddenly get all sanctimonious about how it would be so bad for football if Bolton went to the wall. The same goes for Derby County.

Hypocrites.

Not me, never impresses me when clubs dodge everything and royally take the Mickey out of the system.

[Woollyhat]

It's brilliant if it's Poker. Pays for my beer so can't complain.

Not last I was there!

[Wembley09]

I'm sure Perry really bumped this old thread just to remind royaldyche of his bad bet...

[Quicknick]

I wish Bolton were in the Championship for one more derby.

[RammyClaret61]

Wish Bolton were in the North West Counties League, and their derby was v Padiham.

[ClaretPete001]

Apropos £102 million: Bolton's turnover in league 1 was less than £10 million.

It would be impossible to dig yourself out of the hole Bolton dug without external help from wealthy benefactors.

As a Burnley fan I wouldn't be begrudging Bolton any help they can get...!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Bolton are in that mess because they relied on a wealthy benefactor

[tiger76]

Bolton are in that mess because they relied on a wealthy benefactor

Partly yes, but they also spent crazy money on wages, even when playing at L1 level, thankfully our club realise that in the event of relegation costs have to cut accordingly.

But the Bolton and Derby scenarios show how irresponsible it is too simply rely on a wealthy benefactor.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Partly yes, but they also spent crazy money on wages, even when playing at L1 level, thankfully our club realise that in the event of relegation costs have to cut accordingly.

But the Bolton and Derby scenarios show how irresponsible it is too simply rely on a wealthy benefactor.

They got stuck in a cycle of having players on silly contracts with no relegation clauses and new signings were expecting similar deals.

At one point they were paying Spearing £17k a week in league 1 and he wasn't worth anywhere near that, but they had no clauses.

As Chester revealed, they were still getting money from the Davies family up until very recently.
Instead of using that money to get themselves level they just carried on over spending because that is/was the mindset of the club.

Think of them as a spoilt rich kid who never had to worry about how they spent their money...

[ClaretPete001]

Bolton are in that mess because they relied on a wealthy benefactor

Do you apply that to Man City, Newcastle or Chelsea. Many clubs in the pyramid rely on wealthy benefactors and always have done.

The fact that Derby and Bolton have hit the buffers is not because of their reliance on wealthy owners but because wealthy owners subsidise many clubs. Correlation is not causation.

Bolton got into trouble because they loaded the cub with debt and didn't have the underpinning business model to manage that debt.

What the thread is pointing out, I presume, is that years later the club is benefitting from the fact that the debt is to wealthy owners, or the trustees of their estate, who have the ability to write off the debt.

The main point I was making was not to differentiate between Bolton's creditors and our own but just to say to those who are being a tad unkind to Bolton heed the old fashioned phrase "there but for the grace of God".

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Do you apply that to Man City, Newcastle or Chelsea. Many clubs in the pyramid rely on wealthy benefactors and always have done.

The fact that Derby and Bolton have hit the buffers is not because of their reliance on wealthy owners but because wealthy owners subsidise many clubs. Correlation is not causation.

Bolton got into trouble because they loaded the cub with debt and didn't have the underpinning business model to manage that debt.

What the thread is pointing out, I presume, is that years later the club is benefitting from the fact that the debt is to wealthy owners, or the trustees of their estate, who have the ability to write off the debt.

The main point I was making was not to differentiate between Bolton's creditors and our own but just to say to those who are being a tad unkind to Bolton heed the old fashioned phrase "there but for the grace of God".

Bolton are in a mess precisely because they relied on an owner to cover their losses, Bolton fans knew it and reveled in it, Derby were the same, Boro are another one who's fans are famed for it and let's not forget Rovers did it under Walker and are doing it again with Venkys.

They hit the buffers because they relied on wealthy owners to keep them afloat and to inflate their league position but they never increased their other revenue streams to reduce the reliance on rich owners, so when the rich owners sold up/pulled the plug/passed away, it all goes to pot.

The other clubs you've mentioned have taken steps to increase their revenue streams after initially relying on owners funding, things like academy growth etc, not just via dodgy sponsorship deals.

[ClaretPete001]

Bolton are in a mess precisely because they relied on an owner to cover their losses, Bolton fans knew it and reveled in it, Derby were the same, Boro are another one who's fans are famed for it and let's not forget Rovers did it under Walker and are doing it again with Venkys.

They hit the buffers because they relied on wealthy owners to keep them afloat and to inflate their league position but they never increased their other revenue streams to reduce the reliance on rich owners, so when the rich owners sold up/pulled the plug/passed away, it all goes to pot.

The other clubs you've mentioned have taken steps to increase their revenue streams after initially relying on owners funding, things like academy growth etc, not just via dodgy sponsorship deals.

Most clubs benefit from wealthy benefactors. The reason why so few fail is because those wealthy benefactors continue to subsidise the debt, like the Venky's, or can write off the debt as Abramovich had to at Chelsea.

And conversely, the reason why the clubs who do fail have wealthy benefactors is precisely because most clubs have wealthy benefactors. It is not because wealthy benefactors cause clubs to fail, as I say, correlation is not causation.

I agree that clubs with wealthy owners can use their wealth to generate extra revenue but Eddie Davis is not an Arab state nor a Russian oligarch. And the clubs I mention above are big city clubs with the capacity to grow - Bolton is clearly not.

You may argue that wealthy benefactors occasionally behave incompetently and allow their passion for a club to over ride their good sense but this is relatively rare mostly, throughout history, wealthy benefactors protect the club and suffer losses themselves.

[Rowls]

These clubs "hit the buffers" when the benefactor stops or withdraws their funding.

It could easily happen to Man City, Chelsea, Leicester, Brighton, Rovers etc just as it has happened to Berwick, Rushden & Diamonds, Bolton and Derby. They're all relying on a single benefactor.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Most clubs benefit from wealthy benefactors. The reason why so few fail is because those wealthy benefactors continue to subsidise the debt, like the Venky's, or can write off the debt as Abramovich had to at Chelsea.

And conversely, the reason why the clubs who do fail have wealthy benefactors is precisely because most clubs have wealthy benefactors. It is not because wealthy benefactors cause clubs to fail, as I say, correlation is not causation.

I agree that clubs with wealthy owners can use their wealth to generate extra revenue but Eddie Davis is not an Arab state nor a Russian oligarch. And the clubs I mention above are big city clubs with the capacity to grow - Bolton is clearly not.

You may argue that wealthy benefactors occasionally behave incompetently and allow their passion for a club to over ride their good sense but this is relatively rare mostly, throughout history, wealthy benefactors protect the club and suffer losses themselves.

Bolton failed because of Eddie's backing, same with Derby and Mel.
They failed to ensure their clubs were run within their means and when their funding ended for their respective reasons, the club's couldn't cope.

Having a wealthy owner doesn't result in failure everytime, the ones who ensure their clubs grow correctly will leave behind clubs in a better position to carry on without them.

Walker - poor managerial appointments after Dalglish started their downwards spiral, but he'd also failed to grow the other revenue streams for the club so they literally couldn't sustain their league position without him.

Davies - pretty much the same thing happened at Bolton, just without the trophy.

Gibson - he's written off over £100 million of loans to the club, the last lot being just before FFP kicked in and it's noticeable that Boro haven't come back into the PL since he's had to follow the rules, but even their wages are 180% of turnover.
When he leaves the club they'll potentially be the next Derby/Bolton because they're going to need another sucker with deep pockets to bankroll them.

It doesn't matter if the club's are city or town clubs, failure to grow other revenue streams will potentially result in a clubs collapse in the event of the owners money being cut off.

For all the whining people have done about Garlick, he made sure the clubs wage bill didn't exceed normal revenue and also ensured relegation clauses were put into players contracts.
He ran it as a business, not a plaything which is what numerous other owners do.

[ClaretPete001]

Bolton failed because of Eddie's backing, same with Derby and Mel.
They failed to ensure their clubs were run within their means and when their funding ended for their respective reasons, the club's couldn't cope.

Having a wealthy owner doesn't result in failure everytime, the ones who ensure their clubs grow correctly will leave behind clubs in a better position to carry on without them.

Walker - poor managerial appointments after Dalglish started their downwards spiral, but he'd also failed to grow the other revenue streams for the club so they literally couldn't sustain their league position without him.

Davies - pretty much the same thing happened at Bolton, just without the trophy.

Gibson - he's written off over £100 million of loans to the club, the last lot being just before FFP kicked in and it's noticeable that Boro haven't come back into the PL since he's had to follow the rules, but even their wages are 180% of turnover.
When he leaves the club they'll potentially be the next Derby/Bolton because they're going to need another sucker with deep pockets to bankroll them.

It doesn't matter if the club's are city or town clubs, failure to grow other revenue streams will potentially result in a clubs collapse in the event of the owners money being cut off.

For all the whining people have done about Garlick, he made sure the clubs wage bill didn't exceed normal revenue and also ensured relegation clauses were put into players contracts.
He ran it as a business, not a plaything which is what numerous other owners do.

The salient point is this: the dominant model in football history is the wealthy benefactor model ergo at the root of every failure at a club is a wealthy benefactor of one sort or another.

And I use metaphor hesitantly on this forum but your argument is like arguing that the vast majority of Liverpool players who have been sent off have been wearing red ergo the colour red gets Liverpool players sent off.

It's the classic correlation as causation fallacy!

For your point to have veracity you would have to show that in an industry dominated by the wealthy owner model administration is the norm.

[ClaretPete001]

These clubs "hit the buffers" when the benefactor stops or withdraws their funding.

It could easily happen to Man City, Chelsea, Leicester, Brighton, Rovers etc just as it has happened to Berwick, Rushden & Diamonds, Bolton and Derby. They're all relying on a single benefactor.

Well yes, because football has a problematic business model, which is partially caused by wealthy benefactors and means it is only wealthy benefactors that can afford to run these clubs.

Most clubs are run by wealthy benefactors, particularly in the PL, those that aren't will struggle to compete as Watford, Norwich and Burnley found out last year.

I think the point of the thread was that Bolton are still benefitting from the indulgences of a wealthy benefactor. Or it was until God argued otherwise: erroneously in my incredibly humble opinion.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The majority of clubs in the top 4 leagues in England operate at a loss.
That's because a large number rely on wealthy owners to cover their losses.

You can bat this around all you want, but a club being overly reliant on a rich owner isn't good for their long term future if the other revenue streams aren't also grown as is often the case.

Administration isn't the norm, but running up massive losses is and that's directly linked to reliance on owners and/or trying to match the wages paid by clubs who's owners cover their losses.

Nobody can say that a club owing their owners tens of millions of ££ is good.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Well yes, because football has a problematic business model, which is partially caused by wealthy benefactors and means it is only wealthy benefactors that can afford to run these clubs.

Most clubs are run by wealthy benefactors, particularly in the PL, those that aren't will struggle to compete as Watford, Norwich and Burnley found out last year.

I think the point of the thread was that Bolton are still benefitting from the indulgences of a wealthy benefactor. Or it was until God argued otherwise: erroneously in my incredibly humble opinion.

I haven't argued otherwise ...
Bolton have failed to get their affairs in order because they have a culture of relying on cash injections from a rich owner, that's been my point all along, you've just come along and waffled away claiming otherwise.

[Chobulous]

I haven't argued otherwise ...
Bolton have failed to get their affairs in order because they have a culture of relying on cash injections from a rich owner, that's been my point all along, you've just come along and waffled away claiming otherwise.

Yes but he got to say correlation / causation loads of times so win win there

[ClaretPete001]

The majority of clubs in the top 4 leagues in England operate at a loss.
That's because a large number rely on wealthy owners to cover their losses.

You can bat this around all you want, but a club being overly reliant on a rich owner isn't good for their long term future if the other revenue streams aren't also grown as is often the case.

Administration isn't the norm, but running up massive losses is and that's directly linked to reliance on owners and/or trying to match the wages paid by clubs who's owners cover their losses.

Nobody can say that a club owing their owners tens of millions of ££ is good.

Did anyone actually say that...?

The implicit point being made was that one advantage of owing wealthy benefactors money is that they, or their estate can write it off.

Other sources of finance are unlikely to do that ....!

[ClaretPete001]

I haven't argued otherwise ...
Bolton have failed to get their affairs in order because they have a culture of relying on cash injections from a rich owner, that's been my point all along, you've just come along and waffled away claiming otherwise.

Again you are wrong and you said it yourself.

Bolton failed because of Eddie's backing, same with Derby and Mel.

They failed to ensure their clubs were run within their means and when their funding ended for their respective reasons, the club's couldn't cope.

Statement 1 is wrong Derby did not fail because of Eddie's backing - no club fails because of investment - Derby failed because as you say in statement 2 they ran the club poorly.

Most clubs most of the time rely on wealthy benefactors that is the dominant business model in football because football's business model is problematic and that is why you can't just blithely argue that clubs should like Bolton should just grow other revenue streams.

My point above was in league 1 Bolton's matchday revenue is £9 million. In the Championship, Rovers is £16 million.

The top 6 clubs are generating half a billion and other city clubs hundreds of millions.

Is the point not completely fecking obvious?

[ClaretPete001]

Yes but he got to say correlation / causation loads of times so win win there

Said the person calling him/her self Chobulous.

You could have at least called yourself Claret_chobulous....!

[claretonthecoast1882]

Again you are wrong and you said it yourself.

Bolton failed because of Eddie's backing, same with Derby and Mel.

They failed to ensure their clubs were run within their means and when their funding ended for their respective reasons, the club's couldn't cope.

Statement 1 is wrong Derby did not fail because of Eddie's backing - no club fails because of investment - Derby failed because as you say in statement 2 they ran the club poorly.

No wonder Bolton got in trouble if Eddie was sticking him money in Derby as well

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Again you are wrong and you said it yourself.

Bolton failed because of Eddie's backing, same with Derby and Mel.

They failed to ensure their clubs were run within their means and when their funding ended for their respective reasons, the club's couldn't cope.

Statement 1 is wrong Derby did not fail because of Eddie's backing - no club fails because of investment - Derby failed because as you say in statement 2 they ran the club poorly.

Most clubs most of the time rely on wealthy benefactors that is the dominant business model in football because football's business model is problematic and that is why you can't just blithely argue that clubs should like Bolton should just grow other revenue streams.

My point above was in league 1 Bolton's matchday revenue is £9 million. In the Championship, Rovers is £16 million.

The top 6 clubs are generating half a billion and other city clubs hundreds of millions.

Is the point not completely fecking obvious?

Bolton failed because they relied on investment from Eddie.
When he sold the club it's wage bill far exceeded its income and would for many years due to contract lengths and the expectations of incoming players to want wage parity.
This is something you're seemingly failing to grasp, despite it being a known issue in football.

I can argue that clubs should grow their revenue streams, because that's what every other single business has to do to survive outside of the bubble known as professional football.

Football allows clubs to run at massive losses with ridiculous wage bills, then makes itself preferred creditor and also tries to dodge tax bills.
People like you are then the first in line to bleat about how important a club is to a community and it shouldn't be allowed to go to the wall when it all goes belly up and that's part of the problem, because not enough clubs are going to the wall so there's no deterrent for other clubs.

[ClaretPete001]

No wonder Bolton got in trouble if Eddie was sticking him money in Derby as well

I'm not sure what "him money" is but no doubt feminists will be all over it.

Yes, you are right Eddie was putting his money into Bolton.

[ClaretPete001]

Bolton failed because they relied on investment from Eddie.
When he sold the club it's wage bill far exceeded its income and would for many years due to contract lengths and the expectations of incoming players to want wage parity.
This is something you're seemingly failing to grasp, despite it being a known issue in football.

I can argue that clubs should grow their revenue streams, because that's what every other single business has to do to survive outside of the bubble known as professional football.

Football allows clubs to run at massive losses with ridiculous wage bills, then makes itself preferred creditor and also tries to dodge tax bills.
People like you are then the first in line to bleat about how important a club is to a community and it shouldn't be allowed to go to the wall when it all goes belly up and that's part of the problem, because not enough clubs are going to the wall so there's no deterrent for other clubs.

Football's business model is badly flawed because the big city clubs generate hundreds of millions of pounds worth of revenue.

The reason why wealthy benefactors have to put money into small town clubs is because they can't generate anything like the revenue to compete.

And the point of the thread is that Bolton are benefitting from the ability of wealthy benefactors to write off the debt as clubs have done throughout the history of football.

My point was Burnley fans should be generous to Bolton fans because investment banks are unlikely to be that generous.

And yes I think community clubs should be protected.

And yes I would bleat very loudly if the club went to the wall because of the actions of a small number of individuals.

Perhaps, therein lies our difference.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I'm not ever sure what point you're trying to make anymore, it's got lost in all the pointless noise you're making.

You seem to approve of clubs relying on their owners to cover huge wage bills and losses, I don't, let's just end it there.

[Chester Perry]

Interesting piece in the Athletic about Bolton - link to an archive copy to avoid paywall issues
Bolton Wanderers: Quiet optimism at the club that came close to oblivion
https://archive.ph/3d9bq