Here comes the Summer but I don't think it will be bright for BWFC

scottjames30 wrote:She left us after the glory years, but comes back to call us negative hahahaha.

Are you feeling alright

He made a move on me but I turned him down. Now he's bitter.

Natasha Whittam wrote:He made a move on me but I turned him down. Now he's bitter.

I knew it must be something like that. Is that why he hangs off every word boggers says these days

Breadman twatted her, i always thought Nat was harder.

Breadman did you get your invite to the party?

scottjames30 wrote:Breadman twatted her, i always thought Nat was harder.

Breadman did you get your invite to the party?

Wheres my invite

y2johnny wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:Breadman twatted her, i always thought Nat was harder.

Breadman did you get your invite to the party?

Wheres my invite

In the post mate.

scottjames30 wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:Breadman twatted her, i always thought Nat was harder.

Breadman did you get your invite to the party?

Wheres my invite

In the post mate.

Sweet. Is it fancy dress and will there be karaoke. I love a good sing song while dressed in a lime green mankini and brown suede loafers

I'm
Pretty optimistic we will have a good season....

Im sure, 100% unless we get taken over it will be utter shit.

I might go watching City, my lad wants to go watching them, i might get à couple of season tickets.

observer if you think ED is going to write off well over a hundred million quid you're smoking something really good there. Seriously, an accounting trick? Do you really believe the IRS is that stupid? 

My dad is a Chartered Accountant and I can tell you that no self-respecting auditor would sign off on a company's books unless he was convinced the numbers in them were real. It's actually an offence that can result in both criminal charges and being struck off the register for life to sign an audit you know to be materially inaccurate. Add in that the taxman looks very, very vigorously for evidence of tax evasion via cooked books and it's just not worth the risk either to the company who's books have been cooked or the auditor who signs them. 

We can continue to trade while in debt provided the debt is being properly serviced and our current running costs are covered but make no mistake. The debt is a very real thing and Eddie has already shown he wants his money back. He won't write off a penny that he doesn't absolutely have to.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:observer if you think ED is going to write off well over a hundred million quid you're smoking something really good there. Seriously, an accounting trick? Do you really believe the IRS is that stupid? 

My dad is a Chartered Accountant and I can tell you that no self-respecting auditor would sign off on a company's books unless he was convinced the numbers in them were real. It's actually an offence that can result in both criminal charges and being struck off the register for life to sign an audit you know to be materially inaccurate. Add in that the taxman looks very, very vigorously for evidence of tax evasion via cooked books and it's just not worth the risk either to the company who's books have been cooked or the auditor who signs them. 

We can continue to trade while in debt provided the debt is being properly serviced and our current running costs are covered but make no mistake. The debt is a very real thing and Eddie has already shown he wants his money back. He won't write off a penny that he doesn't absolutely have to.

Well lets put it another way. What if someone wants to buy just the club. Not the hotel, the college, the school and the other interests. Just the club and training facilities.

As the majority of the"debt " is probably attributed to these outside interests surely someone paying 30 - 40 mill for just the club is a consideration

scottjames30 wrote:Im sure, 100% unless we get taken over it will be utter shit.

I might go watching City, my lad wants to go watching them, i might get à couple of season tickets.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:observer if you think ED is going to write off well over a hundred million quid you're smoking something really good there. Seriously, an accounting trick? Do you really believe the IRS is that stupid? 

My dad is a Chartered Accountant and I can tell you that no self-respecting auditor would sign off on a company's books unless he was convinced the numbers in them were real. It's actually an offence that can result in both criminal charges and being struck off the register for life to sign an audit you know to be materially inaccurate. Add in that the taxman looks very, very vigorously for evidence of tax evasion via cooked books and it's just not worth the risk either to the company who's books have been cooked or the auditor who signs them. 

We can continue to trade while in debt provided the debt is being properly serviced and our current running costs are covered but make no mistake. The debt is a very real thing and Eddie has already shown he wants his money back. He won't write off a penny that he doesn't absolutely have to.

Respectfully disagree with every part of your treatise other than your Dad is a chartered accountant.  I never said they did anything illegal, inaccurate or evasive.  I said they used the club and the assorted properties for tax write-offs (legal) and that ED had already received so much value in write-off's that he can afford to sell the club with a good portion of the debt taken off.  Even after such a sale, we may never know the truth. This is no way implies fraud, but sound accounting practices that PG could manipulate (legally) between the entities.  It's a funny thing about what debt really is... and how it accumulates.  We are not privy to those numbers.  It may be affordable for the business to relieve some of the debt and write that off against other businesses as well (which is legal). It becomes the intermingling of the entities which becomes baffling to us looking at it from the outside.  I trust PG is an excellent accountant/businessman who has made ED very happy with the accounting procedures which he utilized.  Unfortunately he has made us very unhappy with the plight of the team on the field.

The one thing we can agree upon, is we hope the next management gets us debt free and we have money to buy some better players to get back to the premier league.

y2johnny wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:observer if you think ED is going to write off well over a hundred million quid you're smoking something really good there. Seriously, an accounting trick? Do you really believe the IRS is that stupid? 

My dad is a Chartered Accountant and I can tell you that no self-respecting auditor would sign off on a company's books unless he was convinced the numbers in them were real. It's actually an offence that can result in both criminal charges and being struck off the register for life to sign an audit you know to be materially inaccurate. Add in that the taxman looks very, very vigorously for evidence of tax evasion via cooked books and it's just not worth the risk either to the company who's books have been cooked or the auditor who signs them. 

We can continue to trade while in debt provided the debt is being properly serviced and our current running costs are covered but make no mistake. The debt is a very real thing and Eddie has already shown he wants his money back. He won't write off a penny that he doesn't absolutely have to.

Well lets put it another way.  What if someone wants to buy just the club.  Not the hotel, the college, the school and the other interests.  Just the club and training facilities.

As the majority of the"debt " is probably attributed to these outside interests surely someone paying 30 - 40 mill for just the club is a consideration

In response to that I'd say one thing. Remember Southampton and St Mary's Holdings PLC? The League AND the taxman didn't differentiate between them when the latter went into administration. The debts are listed against the assets of Moonshift/Burnden Leisure etc of which Bolton Wanderers Football Club is a part. Eddie will not sell the club alone, not if it's currently propping up the rest of the business and no matter how he lists the debt or against which asset he lists it the fact remains that it's a real debt, one that could well hamstring us even more in the future. 

Put it this way. If you own a hotel, a football club and a few other businesses you won't break off the football club and sell it by itself, especially not if the rest are massively in the red or making losses.

Might do

OBs, no, it's not legal any more and hasn't been for more than a decade. Companies used to deflate profits or inflate debt figures to lower tax liability via a number of loopholes but after the Robert Maxwell pension rip off most of them were closed. It's now an offence to offer books with a false profit/loss summation no matter what the reason for it. 

Seriously, the debt figure posted in the official books is as close to a "hard number" as the auditors could get it. And there's no way ED is going to write that off mate. I'm not even sure it would be legal for him to do so because the write off could then arguably be classed as "income" which would attract one form of Corporation Tax or another unless the company concerned went into administration first. 

Seriously, I don't think anyone (including myself) really understands just how bad the situation is getting. We're teetering on the brink of an abyss as big as the one we faced in the eighties now and not even "Lifeline" could save us this time.

That depends Peter on whether the debt has been artificially inflated by undisclosed player purchases and wages to create a trading loss. That would mean ED pays zero tax on the sale of Burden Leisure assets, of which the club is one and more relevant at the moment, the real estate around the stadium is another, when a purchaser comes along. At present someone offering £50mil for the football club would mean ED gets the full £50mil in his sky rocket and incurrs no CGT (capital gains tax) on the sale of the club which is an asset and not a legal entity.

JAH wrote:That depends Peter on whether the debt has been artificially inflated by undisclosed player purchases and wages to create a trading loss. That would mean ED pays zero tax on the sale of Burden Leisure assets, of which the club is one and more relevant at the moment, the real estate around the stadium is another, when a purchaser comes along. At present someone offering £50mil for the football club would mean ED gets the full £50mil in his sky rocket and incurrs no CGT (capital gains tax) on the sale of the club which is an asset and not a legal entity.

Last I heard the club is listed as Bolton Wanderers Football Club (ltd) which would suggest that it is a separately listed commercial entity. In fact all the components of Burnden Leisure are separate companies operating under an "umbrella" parent co and as such ED almost certainly would attract CGT on BWFC(ltd) because he paid a lot less than that for his shares when he bought them.

However, if I'm right and the club is a separate legal entity he does have the option of transferring the debt to another part of the business, thus giving it a clean slate and therefore higher sale value for a potential purchaser. I doubt he'll do that because of course it would incur something like the Hotel with a debt it can't possibly service. 


My personal feeling is he may well sell up for 40 million or so but with his 100 mil plus to follow via a restructured "loan" to the buyers over the next ten to fifteen years. If the repayment figure was low enough or perhaps adjustable dependent on the club's league position and cup performances it might not put off a serious buyer with long term aims. 


I don't know, I really don't know if any of that will happen and frankly I don't think it's all that likely. We're just not big enough or well enough supported to bring in the kind of investment that would be needed to properly rebuild the club the way it needs. I think we could well be seeing a lot more time in this league or (god forbid) see us drop again before things begin to improve either on or off the field.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Getting quite sick of the negativity on here.

Lennon will have money, not a lot, but enough to improve the squad. There's no way he would have taken this job without assurances that some cash would be available.

He'll sign Le Fondre (although Wigan have already offered him terms), a central defender and a midfield hardman. He'll have Clough, Mavies, Clayton and Pratley all back for pre-season.

The future is exciting.

Having just trawled through this lot I'm quoting Nat because he makes a valid point IMO. It's very likely indeed that there won't be loads of money to spend - but there will be some. It's very likely that we won't be able to create a championship winning side - but we might. Lennon probably won't be able to get all his targets - but he won't fail on all of them.

In all likelihood none of these extremes will come to pass so there's no need for either negativity or overoptimism at this stage.

What we know for sure is that Lennon knows what he doesn't like and will be purging the squad of players who have no future with us leaving a core of senior players (and I reckon Baptiste will be amongst them) and approximately 8 youngsters who have for the most part shown they can hack it at this level. That's a good foundation IMO. We talk about having old guys like ALF, Emil and Eidur but a) they have enough class and b) the focus should be on the strength of our youth anyway because if we play our cards right, they'll constitute the core of our squad for years to come.

So even if Lennon only manages to secure a handful of players who meet his criteria we should have enough to compete.

I only hope that his first signing - Twardzik - comes good next season and that the summer signings are at least that standard and preferably higher. If he goes for and gets the loanees he trialled like Rochinha we'll have an incredibly young squad which could pay off down the line.

We can't expect a superb team, but that's not to say that we won't get one so perhaps this isn't the time for negativity?

lusty, my memory may be playing tricks on me but didn't we have a player called Twardzik before? I'm sure I've heard that name connected to BWFC some years ago. 

I agree with you on Eidur and Emile, age is less of a factor than class and if they still have the desire to play they could offer us quite a lot next term. I'd also (very rarely for me) be quite keen on seeing whether or not Kevin Nolan would be willing to drop a division to come back since the Hammers are reportedly going to release him in summer. 

What's the deal with Rochinha? I thought that was a non-starter. Did I miss something in the club news? 

I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic when I say I can't see Neil being allowed to spend a lot if anything. If the last three years are anything to go by we'll see a lot more outs than ins this summer and on the surface that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if we exchange quantity (out) for quality (in). However our woeful track record with injuries suggests that having a really good starting eleven won't be anything like enough. I'm worried and make no apology for being so. 

I'd love to be wrong though. So here's hoping that Nat, you and the others who believe the future is so bright we all need to invest in sunglasses are right.