Why Eddie keeps Phil in his job.

wanderlust wrote:Q: Does the reported £165 million debt include investment in land etc and preparation for this project - or not?

If it does our financial prospects are far better than they look currently and BWFC will reap the profit from this investment when it eventually comes to fruition - although the financial position will get worse before it gets better.

I understood that we purchased the land when the stadium was built and its always been land owned by BL. Hence why there has been no development on it since. I haven't seen the financial accounts, but I'd be willing to guess that the land is part of our assets, but it was never worth anything because there was no planning permission at that time. Now we have secured planning permission the land will be worth approx what the development will cost to build on it as a base value point. In other words, if we don't build on it its not worth anything. I still think they should build a big casino on it, but that would prob meet with the same response as the sponsorship fiasco. It would be great to go to the game and then walk across to the casino!

I don't know but I would not have thought so.

Any investment in land by BWFC (note NOT Burnden Leisure) who are £165 million in debt would have shown on their yearly accounts - both as an expenditure and as an asset and I don't recall that being mentioned anywhere as the club debt mounted in recent years.

I'm just guessing now but wasn't the Reebok built on land that was once a council tip - if so I would have thought the land was owned by the Coucil and is still owned by them or was sold or leased on a long term - 999 years perhaps - to the people who developed the site - or now 'reside' on the site.

The club back then would obviously entered into an agreement for the site of the ground and car park, etc.

I assume that at some time - either when they took on the land for the ground, or at a later date, the club also took up options on the land they now wish to develop.  This being so the land may have been on our 'books' for quite a number of years as may even be shown already in the accounts over the years as a club asset?


EDIT - Just seen Jah's reply whilst I've been typing this.

Well this is THE key issue for our club.

If the development company and BWFC are one and the same for accounting purposes, our club debt should be viewed as an acceptable level of debt for a development company - not an unacceptable level of debt for a football club.

3 scenarios:
1) BWFC is the same company and will therefore recoup it's outlay eventually, having invested further to build the damn thing. Medium term profitability and a return to profits.
2) BWFC owns the land but is outsourcing the development work to another entity in which case BWFC will get future subletting or rental income. Long term slow boiler with little impact on cashflow but with assets to liquidise if required at a future date.
3) BWFC owns squat and is truly up the creek financially

No offence Lusty but I still don't think you get the point I've been trying to make - namely you and many others are looking at things from the football club perspective - but to the owner the club is only one small part of his empire and he will move things around for HIS benefit - not for the benefit of the club.

Mr Davies might be very happy to let the club run with a massive debt to facility his other business ventures within his portfolio - indeed to even accrue of such debt - circa £165 million - must be planned and managed, otherwise he may as well wave bye bye to his investment in it of circa £100 million - and I doubt very much that will be happening.

The massive debt put on the club is obviously having an impact of how this part of his 'empire' functions - take for example not immeadiately finding a million for Juke - but it is probably allowing other parts of his empire to be managed more efficiently - such as the ability to plan for and obtain valueable planning permission for his £100 million property development scheme.

An analagy (maybe a bad one though) may be looking through a telescope - most fans are looking through the wrong end and can only view the club - whilst viewing from the correct end shows how much more bigger (Mr Davies financial empire) the picture really is to him.

Fucking Twat! Pardon my French you understand that breaders.Skullduggery at the Macron..Who would have believed it.fucking greedy twat.

Sluffy wrote:No offence Lusty but I still don't think you get the point I've been trying to make - namely you and many others are looking at things from the football club perspective - but to the owner the club is only one small part of his empire and he will move things around for HIS benefit - not for the benefit of the club.

Mr Davies might be very happy to let the club run with a massive debt to facility his other business ventures within his portfolio - indeed to even accrue of such debt - circa £165 million - must be planned and managed, otherwise he may as well wave bye bye to his investment in it of circa £100 million - and I doubt very much that will be happening.

The massive debt put on the club is obviously having an impact of how this part of his 'empire' functions - take for example not immeadiately finding a million for Juke - but it is probably allowing other parts of his empire to be managed more efficiently - such as the ability to plan for and obtain valueable planning permission for his £100 million property development scheme.

An analagy (maybe a bad one though) may be looking through a telescope - most fans are looking through the wrong end and can only view the club - whilst viewing from the correct end shows how much more bigger (Mr Davies financial empire) the picture really is to him.

No I get your point Sluffy. I was asking a supplementary question i.e. is the football club owned by the same part of the business that owns the leisure development/land etc?

I thought BWFC is owned by Burnden Leisure i.e. they are one and the same company but you suggest that the leisure developments are "other business ventures within his portfolio".

Not sure about your interpretation of Mr Davies' motives but I'd really like to know if the accounts published for BWFC which indicate a debt of around £165 million are actually the accounts of Burnden Leisure?

If so it makes a massive difference to our situation.

It doesn't though - and that is why I don't think you aren't grasping the point.

Sure it matters to the club if they are loaded with debt or not but it doesn't matter a jot to the owner as he will put the debt where it is most advantageous for him. Similarly the reverse can be true - the club could be making millions but it doesn't mean that the owner will use it to make the club better - look what the Oystens did at Blackpool recently.

The published accounts are for Burnden Leisure but the development is a joint venture with BL and Bolton Middlebrook Leisure Trust, which runs Bolton Arena which is a result of partnership working between Bolton Metro, Sport England, The Lawn Tennis Association and the Emerson Group. The Arena is governed by Bolton Middlebrook Leisure Trust, a charitable body made up of volunteers from the business sector.

Burden Leisure is controlled by Isle of Man-based owner Eddie Davies through the Fildraw Private Trust, a company registered in Bermuda.

However BL is mainly financed from a line of credit from Moonshift Investments registered in the British Virgin Islands of which Mr Davies has a 'beneficial interest'!

We are playing with the big boys here Lusty and day to day accounting as me and you know it don't apply here!

Mr Davies will do what is right for him financially first and the club last.

I'm not saying he wants the club to fail but it is a long way down on his list of financial priorities of which Mr Gartside obviously plays a big part of - and once again I come back to the point that Mr Davies rewards Phil for his role in bringing asbout the proprty development and not for running a football club.

QED.