Eddie Davies.

Since their 'divorce' it's pretty obvious who's been more successful.

observer wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote: 

Also there was no money to give to Allardyce to chase the Champions League - the clubs accounts at the time show that.  The money Megson spent came as the new Sky contract kicked in at the start of the following season.

But surely the club knew there was going to be a pot of money at the beginning of the following season? Why not just ask Fat Sam to hang around a few weeks?

Obviously more than meets the eye here.  One can only surmise from the murky Panorama scandal, that it was in everyone's best interest to part ways when they did.

If anything what I got from that Panorama programme was that Allardyce's son may done done some shday deals but for me the biggest shyster was actually Gartside who, actually during the programme, tried to sell Okocha behind the board and managements back - how many btimes has he actually manage to do that???

Is this the same Gartside that said he's never made a footballing decision in his life ?

He nearly signed Rivaldo, give the man some credit.

scottjames30 wrote:Is this the same Gartside that said he's never made a footballing decision in his life  ?

Yep!

Natasha Whittam wrote:He nearly signed Rivaldo, give the man some credit.

Yeah, but he did sign another Brazilian forward.

scottjames30 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:He nearly signed Rivaldo, give the man some credit.

Yeah, but he did sign another Brazilian forward.

So foward that when he was in his own box trying to defend he was also over the half-way line!!!!   

bwfc71 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

As for Mr Amos suggesting that Mr Davies as invested more than his entire personal family wealth (£125 million) on the security of just £5,000 is quite frankly laughable.

I know instead of brushing of what you don't know as laughable, try looking it up - Revolving Facilities!!!

I'm sure you are right in what you say - although I didn't bother to read it - because I doubt anyone would be moronic enough to potentially invest £125 million with the possibility of losing £124,995,000.00 of it by simply not entering in to some sort of legal contract with the club regarding the terms and conditions of repayment.

If however you do run your private business in such a way then please contact me immediately as I have a very tasty investment opportunity for you!!!

carrs wrote:Sluffy
That's my point above Eddie doesn't let Phil waste his own personal wealth he ain't that daft. He is willing to risk a certain amount. He has the assets worth a tidy sum should it go tits up. His love for the Whites remains and always will, . He juggles many things, us, his business, charity and his family. Like us all he would not risk everything on just the football he spreads his bets and tries to keep everybody happy by prioritising and juggling his interests.

That is one of my main points too - although it is claimed the £125 million owed is personal investment by Davies - how can it be in reality when the most his personal wealth was believed to be was just (just!) £93 million - and no one would risk the lot on just a football club!

There is clearly substantial other investment in the club by unknown others under Davies name.

What strings if any that come with that are unknown and will almost certainly have a direct influence on the current running of the club.

Sluffy wrote:

What strings if any that come with that are unknown and will almost certainly have a direct influence on the current running of the club.

The strings you didn't highlight "He has the assets worth a tidy sum should it go tits up"

Direct influence on the running of the club -There are financial restraints in place to ensure we can meet interest and current obligations will be the stock reply. I suggest you deploy waterboarding techniques on PG

carrs wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

What strings if any that come with that are unknown and will almost certainly have a direct influence on the current running of the club.

The strings you didn't highlight "He has the assets worth a tidy sum should it go tits up"

I know nothing personally about Davies private wealth - why should I - but according to The Times, in their Rich List, his wealth came solely from him selling his Kettle business for which he received £93 million.

The following year when the recession hit, they estimated that his wealth had gone down to £61 million.

The figures I've seen for him since have dropped even more!

Four Four Two’s estimated his personal wealth for the 2011/12 season as it as just £40 million!

How then can he have sufficient assets to cover a £125 million debt if things do go tits up?

Doesn't add up to me.

Sluffy wrote:How then can he have sufficient assets to cover a £125 million debt if things do go tits up?
Doesn't add up to me.

Of course it don't add up as he doesn't personally underwrite that huge amount. I think you will find other people are misinformed and often quote that untruth. 
Eddie has some personal financial exposure. The club and others shoulder the rest.

Should it go belly up. Administration, a willing buyer, formation of a new club would be the best options. I'd expect those most exposed would be offered a very much reduced return to wrap anything up. A new company would then lease certain assets from Eddie (hopefully at a reduced rate) to be able to function as a commercial enterprise. Of course Eddie may choose to move his own existing personal liabilities and exposure over and join forces in support of such a move thus gambling on improving the return being offered to others.

The thing is though is that there have been numerous occasions were the club as let it be known that the £125 million is a 'soft' loan as it is owed to Davies (who had no intent to call it in anytime soon).

This conflicts significantly how you and I view the situation.

I can't see how Davies can be owed the £125 million unless others have significantly invested through Davies into the club.

My question then would why would they?  

There are much safer ways of investing than in a club going nowhere fast and even if they were getting a 5% annual return on their investment (£6.25 million per year) it is simply bleeding the club dry to invest and prosper.

If Davies as only got a personal wealth of £40 million as the Four Four Two article suggests, then no one in the right minds are going to invest something like £85 million for just 5% interest when the club is basically not financially sustainable for very much longer.

Something simply does not add up and it must be having a current impact on how the club is currently being run - it as got to have!

What doesn't add up is how Gartside keeps his job. He is responsible for the finacial operations of the club. Debt has increased by almost 100 million since the departure of Big Sam. If he was the chairman of a finacial institute he would being investigated by the fraud squad.

waynagain wrote:What doesn't add up is how Gartside keeps his job. He is responsible for the finacial operations of the club. Debt has increased by almost 100 million since the departure of Big Sam. If he was the chairman of a finacial institute he would being investigated by the fraud squad.

I don't know why you can't grasp that as Davies owns the club (95% of it anyway) he is the one that appoints the Board and its Chairman - Phil Gartside.

If Gartside wasn't running the club as Davies wanted he would be fired.

One can only assume therefore that he IS running the club as Davies wants (and within the financial regulations too)!

QED.

Yes, the club is £136.5 million in debt. Yet, there isn't a sense of urgency to repay that debt thanks to one very important thing that the media seem to leave out of their headlines and only ask questions about it later.

Of that £136.5 million, only £11.5 million is owed to the banks with the remaining £125 million belonging to Eddie Davies' investment firm: Moonshift Investments Ltd. Furthermore, that debt has been refinanced into a long-term revolving loan with a reported ten-year notice clause attached to it.

What does that mean exactly? Well, if Eddie Davies tells Bolton Wanderers that he needs that sum paid in full tomorrow, that means that the club have until ten years tomorrow, to the day, to return that money plus any interest owed. The same thing goes if Eddie decides in 15 years that he wants the money. He would then ask the club and they would have 25 years from today to pay the debt.

Eddie doesn't seem need the money that badly though. Bolton Wanderers are paying interest on the debt and allowing Davies to be pretty comfortable while still investing in the club, the facilities, and the area surrounding the Reebok Stadium.

Sluffy wrote:

waynagain wrote:What doesn't add up is how Gartside keeps his job. He is responsible for the finacial operations of the club. Debt has increased by almost 100 million since the departure of Big Sam. If he was the chairman of a finacial institute he would being investigated by the fraud squad.

I don't know why you can't grasp that as Davies owns the club (95% of it anyway) he is the one that appoints the Board and its Chairman - Phil Gartside.

If Gartside wasn't running the club as Davies wanted he would be fired.

One can only assume therefore that he IS running the club as Davies wants (and within the financial regulations too)!

QED.

So, would you invest your life savings in the club?

See my waterboarding quote above regarding what you think the club have told you as opposed to what the true facts of the financial situation may be. That or a new round of Wiki leaks an alternative option.

Soft loan is a very nice term often used to hide what you really want to hear (manipulation of the truth). Think of it more as being told what they have determined you are to be told (hiding the true state of affairs). 

Clever is Phil, as Eddie may well have business as well as personal interests. If Phil chooses the wording of his comments in such a way failing to separate those interests you would of course be excused for being confused (mission accomplished PG, pat self on back while laughing at the thought of a P45 heading your way)

HINT
Eddie does not personally own everything lock stock and barrel. You have to separate what a company Eddie has a controlling interest in from his personal assets. The two do not have the same personal liability and exposure and they are not lumped together if the tits go upwards,

Very true Carrs.

At the end of the day it isn't my business who owns what at BWFC, the only reason I bang on about the finical side is my attempt to enlighten others that we simply can't go and buy a decent centre back, striker, or whatever as perhaps other clubs could do.

Money is invested into the club as bwfc71 (otherwise known as Chris Amos to most of us regulars) by Moonshift as said above from I believe a line of credit from the Bank of Bermuda.

The money is obviously not free to borrow and will of course have a date on which it will have to be repaid.

As Eddie Davies does not have the individual wealth to invest and sustain a debt of £125 million, either personally or through his business ownership, then the money must be from someone else clearly.

Its easy for people to say things like why didn't Davies back Allardyce that Christmas when we were third in the league, or why doesn't he buy Rhodes - because if we don't go up we could always sell him and get our money back, etc - I think the truth is more likely to be that Davies needs to go to his backers and get their approval rather than him having the final word on such matters.

That keeps leading me to wonder who would have the spare £80 million or so to risk on little old BWFC, and why?

I can only think that some people must have so much cash laying around Bermuda etc, that they can't find anywhere else to put it!

Wonder who though?