Clubs debt rises to 136million

Does anyone know where to find any information about Moonshift Investments - talk about bloody hard to locate on the net!!!



Apart from they hold a stake in a Brazilian company, as well!

Sluffy, do you know much about moonshift investments or eddie or are you just basing all that on assumption?

Copper Dragon wrote:I'd say that you'll have to be promoted in at least 3 seasons for the debt to be sustained (stating the obvious) or you'll have to go down the route of many clubs including Burnley.
That means looking more to the youth set up or buying younger players from lower leagues that hopefully have a good resale value.

We lost £4 million last financial year and that was with parachute payments and outgoing player transfers. It would probably have been near to £20 million but for that.

You're right in principle, but these accounts relate to the last financial year. Clearly the Board were aware of what was happening and started the process of downsizing ages ago which is why 15 players were dumped and we bought into youth which is a very risky strategy when the big clubs have a stranglehold on young talent. We have Sordell and narrowly missed out on Zaha before his value rocketed, but more appropriately we got players like Wylde and have a decent youth squad on the way. I thought this was a reasonable plan given the circumstances, but we're still waiting to blood a lot of youngsters and signings like Andrews mystify me - presumably bought to remain competitive in the Championship whilst the youngsters come through - but that hasn't worked out particularly well.

As mentioned elsewhere, I'd prefer to see the youngsters thrown into it and given a sharp learning curve even if it means struggling for a season or so, but I guess our position is too precarious to risk it at the moment.

We're kind of torn between the outside possibility of promotion as a short-term objective and going the whole hog with youth - and as things stand it looks very much like the promised land of promotion is the priority. Just hope that the youngsters don't get too discouraged by the absence of game time whilst the old guard struggle to get a grip of this division.

Our financial position would be greatly eased by promotion, but we're only going part of the way down the austerity route so we'll just have to see how it goes.

wanderlust wrote:

As mentioned elsewhere, I'd prefer to see the youngsters thrown into it and given a sharp learning curve even if it means struggling for a season or so, but I guess our position is too precarious to risk it at the moment.

That is what I am hoping Dougie will do. If promotion is no longer a possibility then we should blood the youngsters so they are up and running for next season.

Think some of this has already been said but its always good to repeat, sometimes ;-)



Remember that these are the financials for the last financial year - meaning not up to when thr figures were published. I am assuming that the last financial year was up to, and including, end of April, as it usually takes between 4 and 6 months before the reports are published and as Burnden Leisure is basically a private company can take up to longer as they only need to be submitted to Companies Regsitration Office within 10 months of the end of the financial period - also as being a private company there are no quarterlies or half-yearly results as they are not required under current English & Welsh law.

So the cull at the end of last season and the cost cutting exercises taken since beginning of the year will only be shown, fully, in the next set of results next year.


But funny how the man in the know, AZ, has stayed silent, once again, with regards to something so prominent with regards to the club!

'You're right in principle, but these accounts relate to the last financial year. Clearly the Board were aware of what was happening and started the process of downsizing ages ago'

Not to Championship standards though Wanderlust. I'm talking about only having 3 first team centre midfielders and only one recognised left back (last season for us).

Out of interest, when did Bolton last sell a player that fetched a good few million? (It's a proper question, so the Burnley v Bolton yawn brigade can save their posts)

The only one I can think of recently is when we sold Ali Al-Habsi to Wigan for 4 million.

Hoe much did we sell Gary Cahill for?

7.5 million

Oh aye Gary Cahill, should have remembered him.

Whatever you got for him it should have been double.

Copper Dragon wrote:

Whatever you got for him it should have been double.

Don't be silly, he was a crap defender. Our defensive record since he left is actually better than when he was here.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Copper Dragon wrote:

Whatever you got for him it should have been double.

Don't be silly, he was a crap defender. Our defensive record since he left is actually better than when he was here.

I believe that you bore yourself sometimes. I knew Cahill was a good defender before you even knew who he was.

If Bolton had sold Cahill in the previous summer instead of in January then I think they would have got at least £12 million for him.

Copper Dragon wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Copper Dragon wrote:

Whatever you got for him it should have been double.

Don't be silly, he was a crap defender. Our defensive record since he left is actually better than when he was here.

I believe that you bore yourself sometimes. I knew Cahill was a good defender before you even knew who he was.

If Bolton had sold Cahill in the previous summer instead of in January then I think they would have got at least £12 million for him.

You'd be wrong Coyle was offered far less and was holding out for 13. Only time we'd of got a fair fee was the summer before that

Lofty_Love wrote:Sluffy, do you know much about moonshift investments or eddie or are you just basing all that on assumption?

No I don't know anything about Moonshift, it is just my flow of logic on the matter.

About 4 years ago the Times Rich List said that Davies was worth £93 million iirc. The following year - after the recession started - it was revised down to £61 million again iirc.

As far as I recall he had already sold his kettle business before he was estimated to be £93 million - so he would have done well to up his personal assets to £120 million or so at least - (doubled his worth since the £61 million Rich list of three years ago) during the recession years - so I speculate that he could not underwrite the clubs debt himself - therefore there must be others with a substantial financial interest in Moonshift.

Who then would invest millions in a business that loses over £20 million per year - for the last three years - and as been relegated since after the sate of these accounts?

Some put forward an argument that Davies is getting £5 million a year interest on his investment, which he would be hard pushed to get elsewhere - so he's happy to 'lock' his money away in the club BUT that doesn’t make any sense if he has to find a further £20 million each year to keep the club going - £5 million out in interest but £20 million in to keep the club solvent - net 'loss' of £15 million to Eddie each year!

It's more likely imo that Davies is already up to his maximum level of investment to the club and others are funding the £20 million per year.

But why on earth would anyone want to do that - invest £20 million with no sign of ever getting it back?

I can only think that whoever is funding the investment is therefore not worried that they may not get it back.

Who then as £20 million per year to throw away?

Answers on a postcard please!

All seems rather mad to me.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Copper Dragon wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Copper Dragon wrote:

Whatever you got for him it should have been double.

Don't be silly, he was a crap defender. Our defensive record since he left is actually better than when he was here.

I believe that you bore yourself sometimes. I knew Cahill was a good defender before you even knew who he was.

If Bolton had sold Cahill in the previous summer instead of in January then I think they would have got at least £12 million for him.

You'd be wrong Coyle was offered far less and was holding out for 13. Only time we'd of got a fair fee was the summer before that

Hang on, what you are saying is that you were offered less for a player with a year still left on his contract than you was offered 6/7 months later. I don't think so.

Weren't it Arsenal that was put off with the price that summer?

Actually, it is correct, Copper!

As I have said before many times, the piper will have to be paid one day! That top notch business person, thinks she's called Nit Whit, said that Garty would have it covered! He has, it's twelve months at the mo and we are bolloxed if Ed's heir's want their inheritance, here's hoping the Fat One can sort the reputed ten year deal!?! We'll not worry about what the debt will be in ten years shall we? Fooking mind boggling.

Copper Dragon wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:

Copper Dragon wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Copper Dragon wrote:

Whatever you got for him it should have been double.

Don't be silly, he was a crap defender. Our defensive record since he left is actually better than when he was here.

I believe that you bore yourself sometimes. I knew Cahill was a good defender before you even knew who he was.

If Bolton had sold Cahill in the previous summer instead of in January then I think they would have got at least £12 million for him.

You'd be wrong Coyle was offered far less and was holding out for 13. Only time we'd of got a fair fee was the summer before that

Hang on, what you are saying is that you were offered less for a player with a year still left on his contract than you was offered 6/7 months later. I don't think so.

Weren't it Arsenal that was put off with the price that summer?

Arsenal offered 6 million.

Other than that we had no official bidders in the summer.

We did well out of the Cahill deal I thought. Shame we seem to have wasted the money thought..

To my knowledge, player sales and purchases aren't accounted for as income and expenditure, as such. Players are treated as intangible non-current assets (they are each but liabilities, I hear Natasha say), meaning a club's reported profit/loss doesn't consist of transfer fees received/paid, as such.

Copper Dragon wrote:

I believe that you bore yourself sometimes. I knew Cahill was a good defender before you even knew who he was.

Cahill was vastly overated by the media and opposition fans, not disimilar to Kevin Davies.

Taken as a defender he was average at best. He made plenty of mistakes, always let the ball bounce putting us in danger, and the one time he was out injured the defence had their best run of clean sheets.

He was lucky though, he was playing alongside Zat Knight who the fans loved to blame, but more often than not Cahill was the worst offender.