Club debt rises to £163.8 million!!!

Copper Dragon wrote:Parachute payments last for four years after relegation, or they did do.

wanderlust wrote:

Copper Dragon wrote:Parachute payments last for four years after relegation, or they did do.

On a reducing basis though.

Breadman wrote:Just heard on Five Live that last season Utd got £60m for winning the Prem.

This season, under the new TV deal, the team that finishes 20th will get more than that.

Fucking ridiculous.

BoltonTillIDie wrote:Came across this on t'internet - thought it summed up our wastefulness very well


By now, fans of Bolton Wanderers will have had the entirely sobering experience of reading about the club’s annual financial statement. “How did we rack up such a massive debt” is the question usually asked, although it might be slightly longer due to a couple of swear words in there.
The latest yearly deficit is a staggering £50.7 million. Sadly, it isn’t a one off. Figures since 2007, when the loss making sequence began are listed below.

	(£ million)
Year	Loss	Debt
2013	50.7	163.8
2012	22.1	136.5
2011	26.1	110.6
2010	35.4	93.1
2009	13.2	64.0
2008	8.1	53.5
2007	2.1	43.0

A satisfactory explanation as to why such losses have been incurred has never been forthcoming from the Reebok, although a look over the accounts from the past few years does yield interesting information. One obvious factor is wages.
Between 2009 and 2010 there was a whopping £14 million increase and one of nearly £9 million between 2007 and 2008. At the time Gary Megson was being credited (mainly by Gary Megson) with reducing expenditure in that respect.
The claim that these sums were justified by the increase in TV revenue doesn’t wash either. By 2010 wage payments were outstripping Sky’s contribution by £16.5 million.
Another factor is player movements. Bolton may be a trading club, but they’re a bit rubbish at it.
Granted, profits have been made on some sales. Kevin Nolan £4 million; Ali Al Habsi £4 million; Danny Ward £1 million (including add ons); Chris Basham £500,000; Gary Cahill £2 million, but given his status and transfer inflation during during a four year stint at the Reebok, that represents a significant failure. He was though, the only player signed by Megson to be sold for a surplus.
The most successful sell-on was Nicolas Anelka, who was acquired for £8 million and left for £15 million, with £2.6 million of that returned to club owner Eddie Davies as a ‘player success fee.’
The list of players on who losses were or will be made is longer. Some of the individuals below are still at the club. In that case, a projected leaving value of zero has been assumed. Some might see that as overly pessimistic, but do you think that Chris Eagles or Zat Knight will attract transfer fees when they can be had for free at the end of the season? That’ll be a no, then.

		£million
Player	Signed by	Cost	Sold For	Loss
Johann Elmander	Gary Megson	8.2	0	8.2
Gretar Steinsson	Gary Megson	3.5	0	3.5
Danny Shittu	Gary Megson	2.2	0	2.2
Matt Taylor	Gary Megson	3.5	2.1	1.4
Zat Knight	Gary Megson	4.5	0	4.5
Mark Connolly	Gary Megson	1	0	1
Sam Ricketts	Gary Megson	2.2	0	2.2
Chris Eagles and Tyrone Mears	Owen Coyle	3	0	3
Marvin Sordell	Owen Coyle	3.5	0	3.5
David N’Gog	Owen Coyle	4	0	4
Marcos Alonso	Owen Coyle	2.3	0	2.3
El Hadji Diouf	Sam Allardyce	4.5	2.2	2.3
Heidar Helguson (£2.2 million with add ins)	Sammy Lee	1	0	1
Total Loss				39.1

Then there are the signings (mainly loans) that didn’t incur a transfer fee, but commanded big wages. Jack Wilshere and Daniel Sturridge have been judged as successful. Others can’t be, such as Sébastien Puygrenier, Ebi Smolarek, Ariza Makukula. Vladimír Weiss, Dedryck Boyata, Gaël Kakuta, Christian Wilhelmsson, Ryo Miyaichi, Tuncay Sanli, Benik Afobe and Riga Mustapha.
Wilhelmsson was paid £1.75 million for a season in which he barely set foot on the pitch whilst Riga reportedly pocketed £20,000 a week for over a season.
It is perhaps the signing of Danny Shittu that best sums up the cack handed, amateur, incompetent way that Bolton Wanderers has been run over the past half dozen years. Scout Les Padfield, worked for Gary Megson when he was manager at West Brom, then in the second tier of English football. Padfield recommended Shittu to the club after seeing him play for Charlton reserves, reasoning that he would be useful at that level. Megson didn’t agree.
“I went to see your lad Shittu, last night,” said the Ginger One.
“And?”
“You must be having a laugh. He had a mare. Looks like a real liability.”*
A few years later, Megson signed Shittu – for Premier League Bolton. His first judgement was correct. The big Nigerian played in ten league games before being released from his contract two years later.

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

O dear Gartside.

scottjames30 wrote:What has Gartside been doing for the last few years?

scottjames30 wrote:Are we the most debt ridden club in the Championship?

observer wrote:

rammywhite wrote:This is going to be long and boring to some- but its about the clubs latest Accounts. I've been through them this morning with a fine tooth comb - and there are a lot of interesting things in there. Forgive me if this is a bit technical- but I'll make it as easy as I can.
 I'll give you just a few:

1) It cost us £2.3 m to get rid of Coyle and his mates

2) It has cost us £2.7 m in wages to loan some of our players out 

3 As regards whether we'll continue- the best evidence for me is that the auditor (Deloitte) makes no reference to any going concern issues at all in their auditors Report. They gave a clean report. Deloitte are no mugs (I worked for one of their competitors KPMG for years) - and they will have looked at this very carefully as its so easy to get sued if they get it wrong.

4) However the Directors go on at great length about the business as a 'going concern' in three places in the Accounts. They are clearly concerned and have drawn up serious looking contingency plans if we hit the cash flow skids

5)Gartside has seen his remuneration fall from over £800k to just over £400k. He's sharing our pain!!

6)There has to be a real issue about the FFP rules. A few years ago Portsmouth tried it on by separating loans between the football club and their holding company and the FA would have none of it. Look where they are now. Gartsides main tactic would be securitisation of season ticket sales- selling future receipts that we pay (probably for the next 5 years) to a finance company- and recognising much of the income now. Highly suspicious- Glasgow Rangers tried it- and look how much good it did them

7) Ownership of the club is really murky ( as BWFC71 correctly points out). Note 33 says its 95% owned by Fildraw- a Bermudan company. I've tried this morning to get data on them and failed- but I'll keep on trying.
However the loans are made by Moonshift which Eddy clearly owns ( with a beneficial interest- so there's something murky there). But Gartside says in the Directors Report that Eddy is the 'principal' shareholder in Burnden Leisure!!
I smell a rat here and I think we might still be in trouble. The accounts state that all plans are based on promotion in 13/14- so this season has already been written off  by the Board.

I could go on with about 20 more significant points from the accounts but I suspect you're bored already.

But, talking professionally, there are a lot of things in the Accounts which are hair raising.
Unlike what happens on the pitch.
Lecture over- but I for one have concerns about the future

So Rammy... what is the bottom line?  If you were trying to shelter monies and run a football club, what is most advantageous?  Where would you show the greatest loss for tax purposes?  What is the real bottom line for the football club taking out the one time costs of the buy-outs?  Do you think from these numbers that there is a chance that the club can break even when the last of the Coyle contracts (Knightmare, N'gog, etc) are off the books?  Hence, can the club break even, staying in the championship, for 2013-14?

I understand this may be difficult with the wheeling and dealing in the island country laden corporate world, but taking out the land holdings, the large contracts, etc, can this club break even next season when the parachute payments are gone?