Bolton Bury'd

Anything yellow and blue
Boogie
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:17 pm

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by Boogie »

Only 3 of the 9 in on loan having looked in more detail.

Hope they don’t gel in the next 2 weeks.
Hog
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4540
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:30 pm

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by Hog »

They've got a Mickey Mouse cup game tomorrow (Tuesday), nothing on Saturday (when I think they were due to play Bury?) and then Rotherham away the following Saturday, and then us.
slappy
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by slappy »

Those first five games are bringing up some discussion at the top of the table. Ipswich have been gifted a +5 on goal difference for their win vs Bolton, which could be crucial at the end of the season. I'm not sure there's much anyone can do about it though.

Also Football Ventures (Whites) Limited, the company taking over Bolton, have already got loan notes of up to £20M (or possibly two lots) bearing interest at 4%, and dated 2022. I'm not sure who all the characters involved are, but it doesn't sound good.

Back to Bury, it has taken a few days to sink in that the company / football club still exists, but just hasn't got anyone to play. It looks like no-one wants to take on the club because of hidden debt, and charges on the ground, and I think I read the car park spaces had been sold for £10k each to Chinese investors.
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by OtmoorYellow »

slappy wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:21 am Those first five games are bringing up some discussion at the top of the table. Ipswich have been gifted a +5 on goal difference for their win vs Bolton, which could be crucial at the end of the season. I'm not sure there's much anyone can do about it though.

Also Football Ventures (Whites) Limited, the company taking over Bolton, have already got loan notes of up to £20M (or possibly two lots) bearing interest at 4%, and dated 2022. I'm not sure who all the characters involved are, but it doesn't sound good.

Back to Bury, it has taken a few days to sink in that the company / football club still exists, but just hasn't got anyone to play. It looks like no-one wants to take on the club because of hidden debt, and charges on the ground, and I think I read the car park spaces had been sold for £10k each to Chinese investors.
Indeed it is a very unfair situation, promotion and relegation could be decided on goal difference, so people’s livelihoods, jobs, players managers could all be adversely affected.

The solution would have been to prevent Bolton from signing new players for the season.

I agree that it is concerning that the new owners are clearly just venture capitalists with apparently little interest in reducing the club’s debt, which in itself has to lead to suspicion as to motives.

The problem for Bury is that no one is going to be willing to take on the club with the debts and other ground issues. If Bury is to survive in its present guise, Dale is going to have to suck up the debts he agreed to take on. Otherwise it will be curtains.

Maybe a season of friendly fixtures against Premier League clubs would raise some money, even if against second or third string XIs.
Dr Bob
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by Dr Bob »

OtmoorYellow wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:08 pm The solution would have been to prevent Bolton from signing new players for the season.
Not sure what sort of a solution that is. With no other players coming in, you would be condemning a small group of mainly kids to getting stuffed most weeks. Not sure how practical it would be, but a 'better' option IMHO would have been to suspend them and relegate them for the start of next season, removing all of their results to date. Everyone else plays in a 22-team Division with two relegation places. That raises issues of cash flow and revenues from those cancelled matches, but avoids the equity issue around goal difference that you quite rightly raise, as Bolton now bring in several more senior players. Oh and a right back has just become available...

The bottom line, though, is that the mess that has been created under the blind eyes of the EFL and FA will create massive problems, whatever fix/patch (nothing can 'solve' the problems) are now implemented.
Jimski
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 6:50 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by Jimski »

Nah, teams change up until the transfer deadline. If you want to ensure this sort of "level" playing field, you have to prevent any transfers at all after the first game of the season. But I don't really think that's necessary - teams ebb and flow. We got tonked by Wigan a couple of years ago and didn't even play our youth team!
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by OtmoorYellow »

Dr Bob wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:50 pm
OtmoorYellow wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:08 pm The solution would have been to prevent Bolton from signing new players for the season.
Not sure what sort of a solution that is. With no other players coming in, you would be condemning a small group of mainly kids to getting stuffed most weeks. Not sure how practical it would be, but a 'better' option IMHO would have been to suspend them and relegate them for the start of next season, removing all of their results to date. Everyone else plays in a 22-team Division with two relegation places. That raises issues of cash flow and revenues from those cancelled matches, but avoids the equity issue around goal difference that you quite rightly raise, as Bolton now bring in several more senior players. Oh and a right back has just become available...

The bottom line, though, is that the mess that has been created under the blind eyes of the EFL and FA will create massive problems, whatever fix/patch (nothing can 'solve' the problems) are now implemented.
I like that solution Bob.

In fact both Bury and Bolton could potentially have been saved had they effectively been given a year off to sort their issues.
slappy
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by slappy »

I was thinking about the whole of football finance and how you stop clubs getting into financial difficulties in the first place.
I don't think increasing the share of EPL money in general would help, however how about?
Absolute salary cap by division eg £5M in L1, £2M in L2.
No sale of land and buildings unless sanctioned by the League.
No charges on assets.
No borrowings from banks or directors. Financing has to be by direct share issue for cash.
Player contracts to have compulsary reductions for relegation.

Compliance with these conditions is compulsary for a club to be granted it's "share" in the league.
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Bolton Bury'd

Post by OtmoorYellow »

slappy wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:36 pm I was thinking about the whole of football finance and how you stop clubs getting into financial difficulties in the first place.
I don't think increasing the share of EPL money in general would help, however how about?
Absolute salary cap by division eg £5M in L1, £2M in L2.
No sale of land and buildings unless sanctioned by the League.
No charges on assets.
No borrowings from banks or directors. Financing has to be by direct share issue for cash.
Player contracts to have compulsary reductions for relegation.

Compliance with these conditions is compulsary for a club to be granted it's "share" in the league.
Most of those ideas wouldn’t work.

An absolute salary cap may be too high for smaller teams, and may not allow reasonable use of resources for larger teams. Any salary cap needs to be proportionate to turnover.

No sale of land and buildings might prevent club development, where non club assets such as hotels are owned. It might also affect ability to negotiate price.

No charges on assets wouldn’t work, as any mortgage loan to build a significant new asset, must by definition have a charge on it.

Similarly, no borrowings from banks or directors would necessitate asset building from turnover. The whole point of loans is to spread the cost over the minimum life of the asset.

Financing assets by share issue would not work, as it would water down share ownership, and therefore control, of primary shareholder.

Compulsory salary reductions for relegation is a sensible idea, and justified too.
Post Reply