Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Wanderers want Wilder

Wanderers want Wilder

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 6]

91Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 4:27 pm

Guest


Guest
Just out of interest had anyone on here ever tried to have a transfer embargo lifted?  Is it just as simple as showing the books? Maybe they need to update the books and show they are in a better position before showing them to get the embargo lifted. I don't think it is as simple as that,  as showing the books now may mean a lengthier spell of being banned from transfers. Where as if they wait and get their shit together and the club on a better financial footing then it may not come to that. 

So in answer to why it hasn't been sorted yet,  imo, it's because there is other things to sort so we aren't left worse off

92Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 4:42 pm

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Boggers pack it in mate, eh?

Out of line.

Boggers is right on this one. LPP enjoys posting negative shite.

93Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 5:40 pm

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
Nope. I simply post what I see. If that's negative then so be it but I won't post things I don't believe so if you're looking for me to change then get used to disappointment.

If you think there's something positive to say about the club's current circumstances other than the fact we still exist (a big positive in its own right of course) then let's hear it. I for one would love to hear some good news coming from the Macron for a change and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

94Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 5:45 pm

Boggersbelief

Boggersbelief
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Peter, It's the fact that you interpret every bit of news that comes out of bwfc as negative. You are NEVER happy, for example, we finally get new owners who save us from oblivion, but to your they're nothing more than Cowboys without a pot to piss in. (Based on what?)

We recieve interest for Holding and you straight away say we'll get a pittance for him even though we have rejected a pathetic offer from Arsenal

95Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 5:49 pm

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Nope. I simply post what I see.

You said Bolton were the equivalent of a pub team.

Please show me this pub team that has a turnover in the millions. Please show me this pub team that gets over 12,000 people for every home game.

Looking forward to your reply.

96Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 5:58 pm

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Peter, It's the fact that you interpret every bit of news that comes out of bwfc as negative. You are NEVER happy, for example, we finally get new owners who save us from oblivion, but to your they're nothing more than Cowboys without a pot to piss in. (Based on what?)

We recieve interest for Holding and you straight away say we'll get a pittance for him even though we have rejected a pathetic offer from Arsenal
I base my opinion (and unlike you I don't claim to be ITK so it is just an opinion) on what I see and hear from the club, Sky Sports News, the BBC and other reputable media outlets (not the BN) and so far since the takeover I haven't seen anything that makes me feel positive. Obviously I was delighted and still am that Dean and Ken stepped in to stop us being wound up or put into administration but since then it's become clear from their own public statements that they don't have the resources to do anything else. For instance the embargo which no matter how much anyone might wish otherwise is a massive millstone around the club's neck, especially at a time when we don't have a manager.

Come on boggers, for one moment just ask this question. If the new owners had the resources to do it surely they should have made getting rid of the embargo their absolute number one priority. Instead we're seeing them axeing staff left and right to cut outgoings (fair enough) and issuing statements they then have to retract about having a new manager ready. Add to that the fact Ken himself said they need a further 3 million just to keep the place afloat next season. Does that sound like they've got money to play with now?

As to Holding and the other players, my opinion is that we won't get anything like the numbers being bandied about (10 mil, 7 mil or even 5) because other clubs know damned well they don't need to pay that. It's very much a buyer's market for our guys right now and maybe that will change IF we get further investment but until then we aren't in a position of strength at the bargaining table. That said I am very pleased Arsenal's offer was rejected, in truth I'd prefer to keep Holding, Clough and a few others like them and not sell them at all. If Ken is going to put massive tags on them in order to put off other clubs because he doesn't want to sell them at all I'm right behind him and I think that would be hugely positive.

However if the embargo stays as it is and other investment isn't forthcoming fairly soon then I suspect we will wind up with a fire sale if only to pay the wages of what you and Nat so rightly call the "overpaid ponces".

I'm worried about the future of our club and if saying so makes me a negative nelly in yours or anyone else's eyes then so be it. When I see something to be positive about I'll be happy to shout it from the rooftops but ONLY if I believe it's real and not just more of Iles and Nixon's overactive imaginations.

97Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 6:04 pm

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Nope. I simply post what I see.

You said Bolton were the equivalent of a pub team.

Please show me this pub team that has a turnover in the millions. Please show me this pub team that gets over 12,000 people for every home game.

Looking forward to your reply.
Because you've never used hyperbole in your life have you Nat? And people claim I can't see their attempts at humour. That's what it was, a piece of gallows humour albeit with a serious point behind it.

We are in one hell of a mess, the embargo, the lack of money and the way the back room staff are being decimated all combine to make us a less than attractive proposition to managerial candidates. If we weren't then it wouldn't have taken more than three months to replace the last guy with still no end in sight to that process.

Even more worryingly in my opinion is the statement from Ken Anderson that only ONE candidate has actually met both him and Dean Holdsworth. Not to mention the "We're going to announce our new manager next week" in the match programme that then got withdrawn hurriedly.

If this situation isn't worrying you then you're wearing happy clappers blinkers with rose tinted eyepieces. I wish you well with them but I refuse to put them on myself.

98Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 6:09 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Just out of interest had anyone on here ever tried to have a transfer embargo lifted?  Is it just as simple as showing the books? Maybe they need to update the books and show they are in a better position before showing them to get the embargo lifted. I don't think it is as simple as that,  as showing the books now may mean a lengthier spell of being banned from transfers. Where as if they wait and get their shit together and the club on a better financial footing then it may not come to that. 

So in answer to why it hasn't been sorted yet,  imo, it's because there is other things to sort so we aren't left worse off

IIRC, I'm sure something was said that it was more or less just a technicality.

The way I remember it (and I've not looked back to check) goes something like this.

In order to sign off the accounts a statement about the clubs ability to trade over the following twelve months had to be made but with Davies pulling the plug on his future involvement and the club at the time not being sold, that statement could not be made.  This it turn meant according to the Football Leagues rules we were placed on a transfer embargo.

To lift the embargo therefore the now new owners needed to submit the accounts - which are according to Companies House still outstanding.

As far as I can understand nothing much can happen until the accounts up to June 15 are first sorted out and submitted.

I did say more or less this several weeks back but seemed to take a lot of stick at the time from some for being so negative (I was simply being factual - no hidden agenda - but for the sake of argument or upsetting anyone I have backed off commenting too much about the finances since).

Personally I can't see much benefit in appointing any manager until the accounts are sorted out unless the club goes down the route of having a 'coach manager' - ie someone who makes the best of the players he is presented with and has no say (or very little) on transfers in or out.

Holdsworth and Phillips are both at the club and have held league managerial positions and so to has Reid although I don't know if or how he is tied to the club - so right now I can see the logic in not having the need to jump for a manager as they can't offer them anything in way of a transfer budget and seemingly having to sell any player we can.  They might as well save the budget for a managers post as long as they can - and if push comes to shove go in house again.

There are one or two other things that I could speculate on (and on the ST too!) but I 'get' that a growing number feel that they don't want to read what they may perceive to be 'negative' issues after the long and depressing season that we have suffered, so I will save them for another day or will gladly pm them on to anybody who may wish to hear them.

99Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 7:17 pm

Diadora

Diadora
David Ngog
David Ngog
Sheff Utd in for Wilder now

100Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 7:22 pm

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Applicants for the hot seat check out the prize.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

101Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 8:03 pm

Guest


Guest
Sluffy, lpp, anyone who will listen.  Im not saying this is gospel.  And i am certainly not ITK, but......if we published the accounts as it stands at this moment in time, they are going to look shite.  If they look shite it will show we are trading on a massive loss which could effect ffp and therefore get us a 12 to 18 month ban on transfer activity.

IF (and this is purely speculation and my opinion) they wait, get the house in order, make some very tough decisions (which they have already started) with playing and non playing staff and it takes a month or so, but it means we can then start trading again and hopefully invest some of the money we either make from transfers or investments from keano anderworth relationships, surely that would be better.

Stand us in better stead?

Also, lpp, can you point out the articles from the bbc and sky sports that have portrayed ken or Dean poorly?   Its not a dog id just genuinely like to see what has been wrote about them.

Everything i have seen is speculation and rumours from one forum or another.  And like i said it wouldnt surprise me one bit if it is started by the ST to try and turn people against keano.

Sorry my punctuation is a bit wank.  Im trying to get my point across without it dragging on too much.  

Ffs lpp, how do you do this every post Smile

102Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 8:21 pm

gloswhite

gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
Guðni Bergsson
He allows no less than 3 hours per post Very Happy

103Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 8:33 pm

Guest


Guest
@gloswhite wrote:He allows no less than 3 hours per post Very Happy
I hope he uses a keyboard.  Im using my phone and because of my richmond sausage-esque fingers i have to re-read it ten times so i dont get picked up on my shit punctuation and speeling

104Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 8:34 pm

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:He allows no less than 3 hours per post Very Happy
I hope he uses a keyboard.  Im using my phone and because of my richmond sausage-esque fingers i have to re-read it ten times so i dont get picked up on my shit punctuation and speeling
:rofl:

105Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 8:56 pm

wessy

wessy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Surely the accounts that need to be filed are for a specific year or Financial year so if the year end was say 31st March. Then any transactions recorded in April or May would relate to the next financial year. My point being that any of the savings being made now would not affect the accounts that have not yet been filed, so delaying filing will be down to the auditors not signing off the accounts for the prior year.

106Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 8:58 pm

Guest


Guest
My understanding was that it was for us to show we will be on a sound financial footing, if there is such a thing in football.  If it is as you stated then we may well get hit with a transfer ban if we submitted them without showing how things have improved

107Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 10:02 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
I wasn't aiming my last post on this thread at you or anyone else in particular but I do realise my interest on the financial side of the club (and the questioning the integrity of the actions of the ST's Steering Committee) does grate with others on here and can be seen as negativity to the club (and the ST).

It is honestly not my intention to upset anybody on here so in recent weeks I have generally kept my news, views and opinions of the clubs financial position (and the shenanigans of the non elected Steering Group) to myself.

The simple fact remains though that until the accounts up to June 2015 are submitted we will remain under a transfer embargo.

The accounts are a factual financial record that have to be submitted after being audited by an independent company - so no matter what the news those accounts reveal - good or bad - they have to be published and if they are contrary to FFP or any other rules or regulations that we are subjected to under the Football League rules, we will have to face them sooner or later.

It is a criminal offence to trade whilst insolvent, which I am sure the current owners are well aware of, so I doubt that currently is the case but obviously any savings the club can make for the foreseeable future will obviously lesson the pressure of things turning too bad too soon, if at all.

Anderson doesn't strike me as someone dumb enough not to have a plan to make a return on his investment in buying the club with Holdsworth so it is in his own interests for the club to do well and obviously I hope he brings us success as quickly as he can.

108Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Wed May 11, 2016 10:44 pm

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
y2j, I may have been a bit unclear. I didn't say they were reflected poorly, simply that their own statements regarding investment, the new manager and the embargo didn't strike me as being positive.

For instance Ken's statement a couple of weeks ago was actually reported and posted as a thread in the News section here in which he said they needed to find another 3 million in order to fund operations for next season and were looking for investors to provide it.

The statement regarding a new manager appeared in the match programme and was retracted a few days later. In an interview with Sky Sports News Ken spoke about the new manager and in the course of it said he and Dean had met with one candidate. That was two months after Lennon left/was sacked (depending on your interpretation of mutual consent).

I believe that the embargo needs to be dealt with pronto for reasons I've already stated. Hanging onto the books because they look bad is only going to make things worse since these are accounts from last year that should have been filed months ago. If we're going to be hit with a ban because of what's in them doesn't it make sense to get that ban out of the way as fast as possible? you can't retrospectively 'cook' them and spending months trying to won't help anything. Just file the flaming things and get on with repairing the damage Gartside and Davies left behind.

I'm not going to say anything about the ST, like sluffy my feelings on that are well known already and frankly at this moment they are irrelevant anyway.

If we were trading illegally a year ago then I don't see how Ken and Dean can be held accountable for that. They weren't here then so surely it would make sense just to submit what they've got, show their proposals to fix it and move on. I'd actually be quite happy if they came out and said "OK, we put the books in and we've been slammed with an 18 month embargo" because at least that would be concrete information and something you could base a future plan around.

What irritates me most and makes me feel most negative is this half-assed, hanging in the wind with no solid indication of where we are or where we're going. Ken Anderson's no fool as sluffy says, he must be able to see all this for himself and Dean's not thick either so surely by now the two of them must have realised that making positive can do statements when nothing is following them won't help anyone, least of all themselves.

109Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 8:08 am

JohannesburgWanderer


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Sheff Utd in for Wilder now

 My mate is a mate of Wilders, he still lives in Sheffield and has a Sheffield United tattoo on his ankle, so I presume they would be favourites for him.

110Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 8:31 am

Guest


Guest
I just don't think its a cut and dry as people think it is. Otherwise i think Anderson would have done it. He doesn't seem to mind the shitty jobs (luckily for us) and i think he will get it right. 

The guy has just took on a massive business that was/is up shit creek and hes already getting his hands dirty and making decisions,  whilst not popular ones, will hopefully be best for the xlub in the long run

111Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 10:00 am

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I just don't think its a cut and dry as people think it is. Otherwise i think Anderson would have done it. He doesn't seem to mind the shitty jobs (luckily for us) and i think he will get it right. 

The guy has just took on a massive business that was/is up shit creek and hes already getting his hands dirty and making decisions,  whilst not popular ones, will hopefully be best for the xlub in the long run
I agree, something has to be done and it seems Anderson and Holdsworth between them are at least starting to implement their ideas on how to do it. Whether or not they're going the right way is of course open to debate but for now I think I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on all but one thing. The embargo. It's got to be dealt with now, not in summer, not when they think the books look better but now.

It's crippling our chances of finding a decent manager and no one can tell me it isn't. Even if we get slapped with an 18 month embargo at least the fixed term would do much to end the uncertainty surrounding the club and since we've already served about seven months under embargo we'd possibly only have it in place for next season, a period where buying would be difficult anyway thanks to the big wage guys and the need to balance the books.

112Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 11:37 am

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
No point in worrying about the embargo IMO as it will basically either sort itself out or not. The first obstacle is the headcount of senior players which will reduce when Dobbie, Heskey, Pratley and Danns leave. All the club has to do is meet the criteria which are:


Any Championship club that is subject to an FFP embargo during the 2015/16 season will be prohibited from registering any new professional players (permanent contract or loan) unless they have:



• 24 or fewer established players (players aged 21 or over that have made at least 5 starting appearances for the club).  



Where clubs have fewer than 24 established players, they will only be permitted to sign players in the following circumstances (with the player in question being added to the club’s list of established players regardless of his age or previous playing experience):



• Where the employee costs of a player being signed are less than £600,000 per annum (or pro-rata if signed on a shorter contract).



Where clubs have 24 established players, they will be permitted to trade on a ‘one out, one in’ basis but only if the employee costs of the player coming in to the club are no more than whichever is the lower amount of:



• 75% of the equivalent costs of the player going out.

• Or a maximum of £600,000 per annum (or pro-rata if signed on shorter contract)



In addition:



• Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay (or commit to pay) transfer fees or compensation fees for professional players.

• Clubs under an FFP embargo will be permitted to sign a goalkeeper on an emergency basis (in line with existing regulations).

• Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay a loan fee to another club, they may only pay the player’s wage (or a contribution towards it).

• For incoming players, clubs can only pay Agents’ Fees as a benefit in kind to the player in question (as long as they do not exceed the £600,000 employee costs limit). 

• Clubs under an FFP embargo may register players under the age of 21 for non-first team matches.



Read more [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not sure about the current headcount of seniors, but that's priority 1.
Once that's in place (it may be already?) then we can trade subject to the restrictions above - the key one being that we can't offer players more than £11.5k a week which I doubt we'll be doing in League 1. 


Given the one in/one out scenario with 4 seniors and potentially a pile of young players leaving in the summer, we are already in a position to trade although restricted to the lower end of the market. 


To remove all restrictions, we simply have to meet the newly introduced "profitability and sustainability" criteria which will of course take time and why the FA are monitoring our finances so that's just a matter of waiting until they are satisfied.


Given our financial position, I don't think the embargo puts much of a restriction on transfers as far as BWFC in League 1 are concerned because I don't think we're in the market for expensive players anyway.

113Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 12:00 pm

Boggersbelief

Boggersbelief
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Wilder off to Sheff Utd. Adkins sacked

114Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 12:10 pm

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Wilder off to Sheff Utd. Adkins sacked
Do you think Wilder will take the job there? I know the Blades are a big club in lower league terms but I suspect Wilder might prefer to stay where he is knowing he's held in high regard by both chairman and fans. It's also a big move for his family, they might not want to up sticks and move to the North East.

Of course it will probably come down to money, both what Wilder is offered as pay and what resources will be available to him in order to strengthen his squad be it in Sheffield or Northampton. Either way he's not coming here. I just wish we knew who was.

I suppose someone will now suggest Adkins to us but I don't know enough about him to say whether or not that would be a good move.

115Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 12:20 pm

Boggersbelief

Boggersbelief
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
He supports and is from sheffield. Done deal I reckon

116Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 12:24 pm

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:He supports and is from sheffield. Done deal I reckon
Fair enough. What do you reckon to Adkins, I seem to remember him doing pretty well with Scunthorpe a while ago and didn't he have the Reading job for a bit as well? Am I thinking about the right guy, used to be a physio and wasn't an ex-pro at all?

117Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 12:26 pm

Boggersbelief

Boggersbelief
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I'd love Adkins here, did a great job at Southampton where he was unfairly sacked. He's in at 8/1 to take over us

118Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 12:34 pm

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Had a few bob on Peter Reid. 9/4 with Betvictor.

119Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 2:10 pm

gloswhite

gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
Guðni Bergsson
I don't think we'll get anyone until January at this rate Crying or Very sad

120Wanderers want Wilder - Page 4 Empty Re: Wanderers want Wilder on Thu May 12, 2016 4:36 pm

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Can we assume that Reidy actually wants the job? 
I kinda assume it and I wouldn't be too gutted if they reluctantly hand it to him if the search proves fruitless.

Could be a while before it's decided though as Nat assures me there is a massive queue of eager applicants to work through first, us being such a big club and all.

Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum