Phil Gartside speaks: 14 big questions answered by under-fire chairman

Natasha Whittam wrote:

BoltonTillIDie wrote:

Yes this stood out for me and I laughed...The fans are only bothered about the club and the football on show.

Speak for yourself, I love car parks.

Let's leave dogging out of a serious thread please.

I've not been "taken in" as you put it, but it's the first time I've ever read something giving Gartside's point of view.

I agree it's time for him to go, but don't you think if he was as bad as you make out Eddie Davies would have got shut years ago?

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:the one big question still not answered is what happens if Eddie pops his clogs tomorrow?
Its alright saying Eddie is wonderful and thanking him for his money which we all do, but i'm still none the wiser on the long term plans for the debt.

I don't know the answer but this is what I would think it would be -

Re - The Club

As far as I know the club is owned by Burnden Leisure with Davies being more or less the sole owner.

If he died the Burnden Leisure would be shown as an asset in his estate which his beneficiaries could either retain it or sell off.

Re - The Debt

As far as I know the clubs debt isn't owed to Davies directly but through an investment company he has an interest in - Moonshift.

The loan apparently has a ten year call in - and I'm sure I read somewhere that it has been called in and we now have 10 years to settle it in full.

Anyway if Davies died the debt between BWFC and Moonshift would not be effected.

Davies estate would show assets in Moonshift that his beneficiaries could again either retain or sell off - again without effecting the club debt at all.



In simple terms his next of kin steps into his shoes.  If they want the money they will have to sell the assets they have inherited OR asset strip the club (which probably would not be in their best interests anyway).

That's how I see the situation anyway.

Not often I say this - but I agree, although not heard anything that the loan has been called, as of yet.  I would imagine that if it had been announced the BN would splash it over the pages!

Breadman wrote:All he's done with this interview is use the old politician's trick of mentioning the issues that you think the public want to hear about, waffling a bit, skirting round the important stuff and covering it in  about three layers of misdirection and spin.

And I'm disappointed by just how many people (across the interweb, not on here really) appear to have been taken in by it.

I wouldn't trust this prick with a fiver of mine, let alone the finances of a professional football club.

And yet, he's got the plums to start banging on about how hard done to he is.

This fucking idiot is making a very tidy living out of BWFC and, as I understand it, despite all the wage slashing that's been going on, his salary hasn't been affected.

Wanker.

I am with you Breaders, on this matter.

In fact this is an almost complete repeat of what he said in an interview after Megson was fired!!!

bwfc71 wrote:I am with you Breaders, on this matter.

That's just made a mockery of Breadman's argument.

It's obvious that he's doing exactly what ED wants him to do.

It's just a shame we (still) don't really know what that is.....

Tonuse the clubs name to build a meglomaniacesque business where then the football club comes last!

The statement of concern refers to the fact that Eddie does not want to put anymore money in.  Fair enough ....but now put the club up for sale.  We need an owner that wants to put cash in and build up the club if possible.  What is the exact point of Eddie owning this club for the next few years?   
Phil says there have been no offers but have they really gone worldwide touting BWFC for sale...I think not.

terenceanne wrote:The statement of concern refers to the fact that Eddie does not want to put anymore money in.  Fair enough ....but now put the club up for sale.  We need an owner that wants to put cash in and build up the club if possible.  What is the exact point of Eddie owning this club for the next few years?   
Phil says there have been no offers but have they really gone worldwide touting BWFC for sale...I think not.

takes two too tango, the utter lack of respect towards Eddie is astounding at times. Without him you wouldn't have a club to shout for.

but thanks eddie now kindly piss off cos you've spunked all your money on us. 

I remember reading rumours that Gartside was in the far east hawking the club about last year and he hints that there have been discussions in that interview but clearly it's quite hard selling a club with almost nothing going for it (business wise before anyone goes there)

Does anybody seriously think that Davies has put his money into the club because of some altruistic love of BWFC?

He's doing fine out of it all, I would imagine.

The finance bit is just a load of bollocks imo.

To put it simply, of course it would make a HUGE difference if Davies turned the debt owed to him into equity (in effect he writes off the debt to himself and turns it into an investment from him into the club).

IF he did that then he could simply borrow money against the assets - ie the stadium, hotel, training ground, etc, etc.

Fair enough if he didn't want to do that but for Mr Gartside, a professional accountant himself to suggest Davies had no room to do anything other to sit on the debt until someone buys the club is just bollocks.

(Note also he swerved the question about who had put money in the club. The question was "Can you say definitively that the cash invested in Bolton Wanderers comes directly from him (Davies)", he replied "It’s Eddie’s money".  

Now think along the lines of buying a house in that the bank lends you the money to buy it BUT you still have to pay the bank back.

Yes Davies might be the one who has put the money into the club - but was it all his in the first place or is the others involved - which I very much suspect there are.

Give this a read (and don't be put off by its length - stick with it) as it's well worth it:

"The owners of Chelsea and Fulham always come up when Gartside looks to defend Davies, needless to say they do not and never have take a penny in interest on the money they have given to the club. Equally they have personal fortunes well in excess of the money they themselves have ploughed into their respective clubs, in contrast Eddie Davies amassed circa £60 million when he sold his kettle element company, a small part of that sum was injected into BWFC in the form of loans - on which he immediately received 10% premium interest payments on. If you read the reports issued by independent financial experts who have examined the relationship Eddie Davies has with our club, they state he has probably injected no more than £20 million of his own personal wealth into the club, yet he has been paid considerably more in interest payments over the years together with other payments, not least a golden pension pot, consultancy fees, per say. Does anyone ever research his background ? I am led to understand E Davies is a none executive director of a large commercial investment company based in Brazil, who exploit juvenile opportunities that offer good rates of growth and income return by way of annual interest and rentals. This has parallels with his investment business at our club, as an example how can a man who has pumped no more than £20 million into the club draw £6 - £8 million a year in interest ? and where did the other £145 million of debt come from ? it was never debt in its true sense, i.e. there is no evidence E Davies has given the club another £145 million from other sources. When I have perused the published accounts signed off by the club over the last few years I have noted write offs and devaluations based on over inflated false values from the start, i.e. 2 years ago the club claimed player valuations circa £65 million !! when did we ever have a squad worth anything near that sum ? never ! take Elmander - we paid £8 million for him using SKY money, we then paid him circa another £8 million in wages over his 4 year contract, again paid for with SKY revenue - he then leaves for nothing so he ended up costing the club £16 million in total, not a penny of that was paid out of Eddies own pocket or paid for using loans from others, it came out the money given to the club by SKY, in every sense there is no debt involved anywhere - so why is the club allowed to write down Elmander as a £16 million loss in the accounts which is then transferred as a debt at the bottom of the balance sheet, which in turn then increases our debt, which in turn allows Eddie Davies to claim interest on that debt. What a nice earner for Eddie drawing interest and claiming the club owe him a debt when he has never put a penny on the table ! Crazy as that sounds, its legal !! I also beg people to trawl through previous comments made to the media by Gartside over the last 2 years - I think he stated to Radio Manchester not long ago that all the clubs assets are owned by Eddie Davies, the ground, the hotel, the land, literally everything is owned by Burnden Leisure the company owned by Eddie Davies, it is fair to assume that these assets have been used by Eddie Davies as collateral to borrow the £ millions he has borrowed from others through Moonshift Developments whenever cash injections have been needed to pay the bills. Why then was Gartside allowed to claim in his interview today that the club still owns all its facilities, and duly retains ownership of these assets when such a statement is a blatant contradiction to the last public statement he gave on this very same subject. Finally, although I could say a great deal more to drive a truck through the false comments uttered by Gartside, the De Veres White Hotel was built and paid for by the club without ever going through competitive tendering, in essence the board of directors allowed the chairman to build it using his own private building firm, able to charge the club whatever he wished, similarly he was handed a multi long term FM contract to maintain the hotel and the stadium for years afterwards. No such thing as due diligence ever stood in the way of personal vested interest or greed, none of the directors ever put the financial best interests of the club before their own, Gartside & Davies are no different, they are cut from the same cloth, battling for control in the same murky corridors and boardrooms, while our beloved football team and its supporters can go to hell, we are repeatedly exploited, forced to read patronising drivel as they endeavour to brainwash us into believing what they want us to belief in order that they retain the freedom to pillage the club for their own gains, akin to watching African vultures picking the last morsels of flesh from what has become a slain dead carcass."

Let us not forget that Eddie Davies started life as an independant estate agent in Farnworth. He then opened a second branch in Little Lever but sold the businesses once he had the patent for the kettle switch.
It is my understanding that Phil Gartside invited Eddie Davies to invest in Wanderers at the time we were due to relocate to the Reebok and this is what happened. 10% interest is a very decent return on any loan whichever way you look at it!

Breadman wrote:Give this a read (and don't be put off by its length - stick with it) as it's well worth it:

"The owners of Chelsea and Fulham always come up when Gartside looks to defend Davies, needless to say they do not and never have take a penny in interest on the money they have given to the club. Equally they have personal fortunes well in excess of the money they themselves have ploughed into their respective clubs, in contrast Eddie Davies amassed circa £60 million when he sold his kettle element company, a small part of that sum was injected into BWFC in the form of loans - on which he immediately received 10% premium interest payments on. If you read the reports issued by independent financial experts who have examined the relationship Eddie Davies has with our club, they state he has probably injected no more than £20 million of his own personal wealth into the club, yet he has been paid considerably more in interest payments over the years together with other payments, not least a golden pension pot, consultancy fees, per say. Does anyone ever research his background ? I am led to understand E Davies is a none executive director of a large commercial investment company based in Brazil, who exploit juvenile opportunities that offer good rates of growth and income return by way of annual interest and rentals. This has parallels with his investment business at our club, as an example how can a man who has pumped no more than £20 million into the club draw £6 - £8 million a year in interest ? and where did the other £145 million of debt come from ? it was never debt in its true sense, i.e. there is no evidence E Davies has given the club another £145 million from other sources. When I have perused the published accounts signed off by the club over the last few years I have noted write offs and devaluations based on over inflated false values from the start, i.e. 2 years ago the club claimed player valuations circa £65 million !! when did we ever have a squad worth anything near that sum ? never ! take Elmander - we paid £8 million for him using SKY money, we then paid him circa another £8 million in wages over his 4 year contract, again paid for with SKY revenue - he then leaves for nothing so he ended up costing the club £16 million in total, not a penny of that was paid out of Eddies own pocket or paid for using loans from others, it came out the money given to the club by SKY, in every sense there is no debt involved anywhere - so why is the club allowed to write down Elmander as a £16 million loss in the accounts which is then transferred as a debt at the bottom of the balance sheet, which in turn then increases our debt, which in turn allows Eddie Davies to claim interest on that debt. What a nice earner for Eddie drawing interest and claiming the club owe him a debt when he has never put a penny on the table ! Crazy as that sounds, its legal !! I also beg people to trawl through previous comments made to the media by Gartside over the last 2 years - I think he stated to Radio Manchester not long ago that all the clubs assets are owned by Eddie Davies, the ground, the hotel, the land, literally everything is owned by Burnden Leisure the company owned by Eddie Davies, it is fair to assume that these assets have been used by Eddie Davies as collateral to borrow the £ millions he has borrowed from others through Moonshift Developments whenever cash injections have been needed to pay the bills. Why then was Gartside allowed to claim in his interview today that the club still owns all its facilities, and duly retains ownership of these assets when such a statement is a blatant contradiction to the last public statement he gave on this very same subject. Finally, although I could say a great deal more to drive a truck through the false comments uttered by Gartside, the De Veres White Hotel was built and paid for by the club without ever going through competitive tendering, in essence the board of directors allowed the chairman to build it using his own private building firm, able to charge the club whatever he wished, similarly he was handed a multi long term FM contract to maintain the hotel and the stadium for years afterwards. No such thing as due diligence ever stood in the way of personal vested interest or greed, none of the directors ever put the financial best interests of the club before their own, Gartside & Davies are no different, they are cut from the same cloth, battling for control in the same murky corridors and boardrooms, while our beloved football team and its supporters can go to hell, we are repeatedly exploited, forced to read patronising drivel as they endeavour to brainwash us into believing what they want us to belief in order that they retain the freedom to pillage the club for their own gains, akin to watching African vultures picking the last morsels of flesh from what has become a slain dead carcass."

I stuck with it and read it through - twice.
All I got from that was that the author has no understanding about accounts, business finance, taxation and debt and is using the wrong conclusions to construct an attack on the club and owners which is then overlayed with some dubious speculation and a personal agenda.

Or as we say in English, it's a heap of crap.

For example, if it was true that ED lent the club £20 mil - and we know that for a time he was getting 10% interest - how does that equate to ED drawing "£6 to 8 million a year interest" on the loan?

Anyhoo 10% interest is nothing for £20 million - he could get at least that sticking his money into a decent Unit Trust and far more if he went for a higher risk investment profile.

Our immediate concerns include the 10 year repayment hiatus which ED agreed to over a year ago. If we stay in the lower leagues we may struggle to repay the debt despite the generous terms ED has agreed to - especially if we don't pay it off as we go along which is what seems to be happening.

And paying it off as we go along will restrict our working capital, further reducing our capacity to turn it around.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I've not been "taken in" as you put it, but it's the first time I've ever read something giving Gartside's point of view.

I agree it's time for him to go, but don't you think if he was as bad as you make out Eddie Davies would have got shut years ago?

He's covering Eddie's back and fuck the football. The statement about quite a good business says it all. 
The only people interested in football are the fans and that doesn't fit in with Little and Large' business interests!! 
Just my opinion of course.

Talking of football, my biggest complaint, and why I think Gartside should go, is his consistent failure to pick a good manager. Obviously accepting known shortcomings when trawling for new ones, and expecting the club to survive, until some, unknown, plan, is executed. Its obvious that the team is becoming secondary to the main business, and this is shown by the lack of support and investment. If more the money had been spent on the team instead of the other business, maybe, just maybe, we might be better off.

Breadman wrote:Does anybody seriously think that Davies has put his money into the club because of some altruistic love of BWFC?

He's doing fine out of it all, I would imagine.

The key word Breaders here is 'imagine'.
For all the speculation that is going on in this thread about Eddie, his intentions, his corporate financial structure, his wealth, his estate -whatever else- its all imagination and assertion.
Lets be frank and honest- he's put a fortune into this club and some of it might have been wasted, and some not.
But no-one here really knows what's happening under the surface financially, so most of what's said here about Eddie's involvement (apart from lending the club about £168million) is pure speculation

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

terenceanne wrote:The statement of concern refers to the fact that Eddie does not want to put anymore money in.  Fair enough ....but now put the club up for sale.  We need an owner that wants to put cash in and build up the club if possible.  What is the exact point of Eddie owning this club for the next few years?   
Phil says there have been no offers but have they really gone worldwide touting BWFC for sale...I think not.

takes two too tango, the utter lack of respect towards Eddie is astounding at times. Without him you wouldn't have a club to shout for.

but thanks eddie now kindly piss off cos you've spunked all your money on us. 

I remember reading rumours that Gartside was in the far east hawking the club about last year and he hints that there have been discussions in that interview but clearly it's quite hard selling a club with almost nothing going for it (business wise before anyone goes there)

You have answered your own question...." a club with almost nothing going for it".....  imagine a regular business where the management had taken the company down to be worthless, laid off the employees and up to the eyeballs in debt.  Yet all the management is still in place....what would the stockholders say I wonder.

Good analogy there TA. Puts it into perspective.

But it doesn't really put it into perspective at all does it? The typical analogy of comparing football clubs/players/owners/managers to everyday business and employees just doesn't work at any level. 

I don't know the exact numbers, I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but I know my families shares in the club are worthless after Davies ordered a reissue of shares when he first came in. So he's answerable to nobody but himself, no matter what any of the shareholders think it's completely irrelevant this isn't the fans club it's Eddie Davies'. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of businesses where the majority shareholder has taken control of it and done what he sees fit, which is exactly what is happening with us.