Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Money troubles at the club?

Money troubles at the club?

+9
Norpig
BoltonTillIDie
Growler
Whitesince63
boltonbonce
wanderlust
karlypants
Ten Bobsworth
Sluffy
13 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1Money troubles at the club? Empty Money troubles at the club? Wed Jan 20 2021, 21:17

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

This caught my eye and times are hard these days...

Exclusive: Wolves set sights on signing Bolton rising star amid contract reveal

Wolves are among a number of top Premier League clubs keeping tabs on Bolton Wanderers rising star Finlay Lockett, Football Insider can reveal.

Lockett is a 17-year-old left winger who is a 2nd-year scholar at the club and has made five appearances for the club’s first-team.

A recruitment source has told Football Insider he is yet to be handed a pro deal due to the financial situation at Bolton.

Lockett became Bolton’s second youngest ever debutant at just 16 last season and made two further appearances last term.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He has added to his senior experience this season and was handed his full debut by Ian Evatt in the Trotters’ 2-1 loss to Shrewsbury Town in the EFL Trophy in October.

The Englishman has not featured for Evatt’s side the visit of Shrewsbury but has instead been a regular for the club’s Under-18s.

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

2Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Wed Jan 20 2021, 22:22

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy wrote:This caught my eye and times are hard these days...

Exclusive: Wolves set sights on signing Bolton rising star amid contract reveal

Wolves are among a number of top Premier League clubs keeping tabs on Bolton Wanderers rising star Finlay Lockett, Football Insider can reveal.

Lockett is a 17-year-old left winger who is a 2nd-year scholar at the club and has made five appearances for the club’s first-team.

A recruitment source has told Football Insider he is yet to be handed a pro deal due to the financial situation at Bolton.

Lockett became Bolton’s second youngest ever debutant at just 16 last season and made two further appearances last term.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He has added to his senior experience this season and was handed his full debut by Ian Evatt in the Trotters’ 2-1 loss to Shrewsbury Town in the EFL Trophy in October.

The Englishman has not featured for Evatt’s side the visit of Shrewsbury but has instead been a regular for the club’s Under-18s.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Has anyone anywhere carried out anything even vaguely approaching a rational assessment of BWFC's present financial position and prospects?

3Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Wed Jan 20 2021, 23:31

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Has anyone anywhere carried out anything even vaguely approaching a rational assessment of BWFC's present financial position and prospects?

Apart from FV themselves I would doubt it.

The next accounts aren't due until the 30th June and they will only be for the year ending 30th June last year.

The accounts for the club FVWL Football Ltd are due on the 8th April for the period up to 31st July last year

FV are due to settle all non footballing creditors two years after taking over the club at 35p in the £ so that will be due this year which I think is around £3.5m and I think in theory the £20m security from Nick Luckock falls due too this year although I imagine that will be extended (but of course interest charges will have to be met).

And of course the Administrators fee of iirc(?) £1.5m is already over due.

So Sharron must already have had to be dipping into her purse just to keep the bills paid to date with the club having reduced income over last year due to Covid and no match day crowds.

All this of course most fans will be blissfully unconcerned with as usual but you can't indefinitely run a business as a loss as someone with deep pockets such as Eddie Davies had to eventually accept.

If the above report is true - and it may well not be - it is concerning that we are already looking at what we are paying 17 year olds and weighing up if we can afford it.

I can't see a storm coming on the horizon for us if the financial winds don't change in the next year or two.

Hope I'm wrong about that though.

4Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Thu Jan 21 2021, 10:07

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

If anyone has provided any reasoned assessment I haven't seen it, Sluffy, but  let me  ask you this? Do you think that Sharon Brittan and Nick Luckock were each willing to put up £20m and, if so, why?

Or we could  talk about sherbert dips and gobstoppers.

5Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Thu Jan 21 2021, 10:14

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Ten Bobsworth wrote:If anyone has provided any reasoned assessment I haven't seen it, Sluffy, but  let me  ask you this? Do you think that Sharon Brittan and Nick Luckock were each willing to put up £20m and, if so, why?

Or we could  talk about sherbert dips and gobstoppers.
I'd be hard pushed to find a gobstopper big enough for you, Bob. Razz

6Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Thu Jan 21 2021, 10:17

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

boltonbonce wrote:
Ten Bobsworth wrote:If anyone has provided any reasoned assessment I haven't seen it, Sluffy, but  let me  ask you this? Do you think that Sharon Brittan and Nick Luckock were each willing to put up £20m and, if so, why?

Or we could  talk about sherbert dips and gobstoppers.
I'd be hard pushed to find a gobstopper big enough for you, Bob. Razz
:number1: :rofl:

7Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Thu Jan 21 2021, 10:31

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I’m surprised FV have maintained a semblance of stability so far given that Covid must have thrown a spanner in the works and forced adjustments to the original rebuilding plans. Maybe they’re betting the farm on promotion and/or making huge personal sacrifices given that they can’t be turning a profit under the present circumstances, bless ‘em. 
I’d guess they need to use the money where it’s needed and I doubt that would be giving a contract to a 17 yo who isn’t ready to perform right now.
We can only surmise in the absence of published info and even if they file returns I’d tend to be sceptical   about reading too much into them.

8Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Thu Jan 21 2021, 14:08

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

boltonbonce wrote:
I'd be hard pushed to find a gobstopper big enough for you, Bob. Razz
Not up to your usual standard of humour, Boncey, but some folk are very easily amused.

9Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Thu Jan 21 2021, 14:13

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:I’m surprised FV have maintained a semblance of stability so far given that Covid must have thrown a spanner in the works and forced adjustments to the original rebuilding plans. Maybe they’re betting the farm on promotion and/or making huge personal sacrifices given that they can’t be turning a profit under the present circumstances, bless ‘em. 
I’d guess they need to use the money where it’s needed and I doubt that would be giving a contract to a 17 yo who isn’t ready to perform right now.
We can only surmise in the absence of published info and even if they file returns I’d tend to be sceptical   about reading too much into them.

Well coming from a Business Consultant who famously told us from the reading of the clubs accounts that the former owner was financially raping the club and selling off assets and missing completely that we had outstanding creditors to be paid of £186m (falling due in a year or more time) and the club had no assets that hadn't already been secured against and the business was all but insolvent - and from that rabid, utterly wrong and wildly inaccurate stance of yours on this matter to go on to berate and abuse me on a more or less daily basis for the next three years or more for stating what the actual position of the club was and hence why things were happening as they were - then thankfully we don't have to rely on your understanding (or rather lack of it) and 'scepticism' of the clubs future audited accounts.

I've no idea what FV's business plan ever has been but clearly to break even they have to recover their costs from buying the club and the ongoing running costs until they reach such a point and they can't do that without making a profit somewhere down the line and that can't be done in football terms alone unless they win promotion to the Premier League or sell a few players for big money.

Seeing we had hardly any players when FV bought the club and had to cast our net in the pool of players no other clubs wanted (and generally had to do the same this season to) then that didn't seem to be the plan and buying the club from Administration knowing we would be in a lower division the following year with a 12 point penalty and player embargo clearly meant getting to the PL in say three to four years was a bit of a longshot at best and one I personally discounted.

The only financial plan idea I heard that made some sense to me was that the car parks were to be built on to provide significantly further accommodation for the hotel (and that was why the purchase of the hotel with the club was so crucial to the overall deal).

This may well have been all poppycock but try as I might I could never find a better suggested reason for buying the club and once FV did complete the purchase and the 'digger's' didn't move in to start work on the car parks, it was quickly quite obvious that the hotel expansion clearly wasn't the master plan either.

As for the article I started the thread with, the point I was making was that in football terms we are talking pennies in respect of 17 year old's contracts - all clubs will have similar youth schemes - so if we really are having to look closely at not being able to afford keeping clearly a player coveted by bigger clubs then money must really be very tight indeed.

Which if it is the case (it of course may not be) means we seem to already be in some serious financial difficulties if we are already looking at such small amounts as savings to keeping the club solvent.

10Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Thu Jan 21 2021, 14:48

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:If anyone has provided any reasoned assessment I haven't seen it, Sluffy, but  let me  ask you this? Do you think that Sharon Brittan and Nick Luckock were each willing to put up £20m and, if so, why?

Or we could  talk about sherbert dips and gobstoppers.

I was never keen on sherbert dips and gobstoppers, always preferred chocolates myself.

As for Sharon and Nick's £20m funding, I simply haven't a clue.

I've commented above in my post to Wanderlust my thoughts on how they might get a return on their investment and I can't see it being in football terms and the only rational plan that was suggested to me by developing the land around the stadium hasn't materialised so I'm stumped.

The only conclusion I'm left with is that Sharon is in for the long term and is prepared to fund the club from her own pocket like Eddie did (but in a far more restrained way) and that Nick is just there for a return on his investment from Sharon and that his £20m is more about being on call for security rather than being working capital.

Seeing that on paper at least there is £40m behind the club then reports about being able to fund 17 year old's apprentice contracts seems to suggest Sharon is already feeling the pinch in her purse to me.

But then again what do I know as there seems to be a never ending line of suitors willing to buy Wigan and God knows why because it makes absolutely no financial sense to me.

11Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Thu Jan 21 2021, 18:54

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Not up to your usual standard of humour, Boncey, but some folk are very easily amused.
Very true. But we aim to please.

12Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Fri Jan 22 2021, 12:59

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

boltonbonce wrote:
Very true. But we aim to please.
Olive Oyl, Olive Oyl
Olive, Olive Oyl
I like her voice
And she's my first choice
Olive, Olive Oyl

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



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Fri Jan 22 2021, 14:56; edited 2 times in total

13Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Fri Jan 22 2021, 13:04

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy wrote:

I was never keen on sherbert dips and gobstoppers, always preferred chocolates myself.

As for Sharon and Nick's £20m funding, I simply haven't a clue.

I've commented above in my post to Wanderlust my thoughts on how they might get a return on their investment and I can't see it being in football terms and the only rational plan that was suggested to me by developing the land around the stadium hasn't materialised so I'm stumped.

The only conclusion I'm left with is that Sharon is in for the long term and is prepared to fund the club from her own pocket like Eddie did (but in a far more restrained way) and that Nick is just there for a return on his investment from Sharon and that his £20m is more about being on call for security rather than being working capital.

Seeing that on paper at least there is £40m behind the club then reports about being able to fund 17 year old's apprentice contracts seems to suggest Sharon is already feeling the pinch in her purse to me.

But then again what do I know as there seems to be a never ending line of suitors willing to buy Wigan and God knows why because it makes absolutely no financial sense to me.

I don't think Nick's putting in £20m and I don't think Sharon is either. They'd have to be bonkers and I don't think they are.

14Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Fri Jan 22 2021, 15:02

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

Well coming from a Business Consultant who famously told us from the reading of the clubs accounts that the former owner was financially raping the club and selling off assets and missing completely that we had outstanding creditors to be paid of £186m (falling due in a year or more time) and the club had no assets that hadn't already been secured against and the business was all but insolvent - and from that rabid, utterly wrong and wildly inaccurate stance of yours on this matter to go on to berate and abuse me on a more or less daily basis for the next three years or more for stating what the actual position of the club was and hence why things were happening as they were - then thankfully we don't have to rely on your understanding (or rather lack of it) and 'scepticism' of the clubs future audited accounts.

I've no idea what FV's business plan ever has been but clearly to break even they have to recover their costs from buying the club and the ongoing running costs until they reach such a point and they can't do that without making a profit somewhere down the line and that can't be done in football terms alone unless they win promotion to the Premier League or sell a few players for big money.

Seeing we had hardly any players when FV bought the club and had to cast our net in the pool of players no other clubs wanted (and generally had to do the same this season to) then that didn't seem to be the plan and buying the club from Administration knowing we would be in a lower division the following year with a 12 point penalty and player embargo clearly meant getting to the PL in say three to four years was a bit of a longshot at best and one I personally discounted.

The only financial plan idea I heard that made some sense to me was that the car parks were to be built on to provide significantly further accommodation for the hotel (and that was why the purchase of the hotel with the club was so crucial to the overall deal).

This may well have been all poppycock but try as I might I could never find a better suggested reason for buying the club and once FV did complete the purchase and the 'digger's' didn't move in to start work on the car parks, it was quickly quite obvious that the hotel expansion clearly wasn't the master plan either.

As for the article I started the thread with, the point I was making was that in football terms we are talking pennies in respect of 17 year old's contracts - all clubs will have similar youth schemes - so if we really are having to look closely at not being able to afford keeping clearly a player coveted by bigger clubs then money must really be very tight indeed.

Which if it is the case (it of course may not be) means we seem to already be in some serious financial difficulties if we are already looking at such small amounts as savings to keeping the club solvent.
You lost my attention at ""Well..."
Smile

15Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Fri Jan 22 2021, 17:01

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I don't think Nick's putting in £20m and I don't think Sharon is either. They'd have to be bonkers and I don't think they are.

The way it seems to be to me and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Nick and Sharon have provided a line of credit to the club of £20m each to fund the club if required and both have secured this on the assets of the company.

This of course doesn't mean they expect to use some or all of their monies but it is there to be drawn down on demand if required and in effect underwrites the credit worthiness of the club to trade.

I would guess non of Nick's money has been touched, although he will be being paid a sum for this facility, and that Sharon has had to dip into hers to keep the club solvent - maybe even a bit too much for her liking already if the report is true that we can't find the money to keep a starlet that at least one PL club coverts.

I must admit when I first heard that between them they had underwritten the club to the tune of £40m I did indeed believe the plan was to build on the car parks but of course that never happened, as like you I certainly didn't believe they were stupid enough to spend it on the club in a desperate lotto type gamble in staking everything on an attempt to get into the PL before their money ran out!

I therefore come all the way back in a full circle as to why Sharon, or anyone else would want to buy a football club as £40m can be spent (and wasted) in a blink of an eye without achieving anything.

Maybe Sharon is a little bonkers after all!

16Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Fri Jan 22 2021, 22:00

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy wrote:

The way it seems to be to me and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Nick and Sharon have provided a line of credit to the club of £20m each to fund the club if required and both have secured this on the assets of the company.

This of course doesn't mean they expect to use some or all of their monies but it is there to be drawn down on demand if required and in effect underwrites the credit worthiness of the club to trade.

I would guess non of Nick's money has been touched, although he will be being paid a sum for this facility, and that Sharon has had to dip into hers to keep the club solvent - maybe even a bit too much for her liking already if the report is true that we can't find the money to keep a starlet that at least one PL club coverts.

I must admit when I first heard that between them they had underwritten the club to the tune of £40m I did indeed believe the plan was to build on the car parks but of course that never happened, as like you I certainly didn't believe they were stupid enough to spend it on the club in a desperate lotto type gamble in staking everything on an attempt to get into the PL before their money ran out!

I therefore come all the way back in a full circle as to why Sharon, or anyone else would want to buy a football club as £40m can be spent (and wasted) in a blink of an eye without achieving anything.

Maybe Sharon is a little bonkers after all!

Maybe we should ask Kieran Maguire. Conn and Maguire seem to suffer from the same bonkers syndrome that if you lend money to a company at a rate of interest higher than you'd get on an ISA  you must be coining it in. Why has it never dawned on either of them that you can usually expect to get your money back when you want it if you invest in an ISA and there's every chance you'll never see much,if any, of it again if its a footie club?

Where do you suppose they get these ideas from?

I think Sharon's decided to give it a go for her own reasons but cosying up to the ST was a bit concerning. If she ever imagined that  the ST would amount to much I really would be worried about her. 

This line of credit business? We've seen some of the documents but not all of them and in that instance I prefer to apply financial logic.

17Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Fri Jan 22 2021, 22:51

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

The way it seems to be to me and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Nick and Sharon have provided a line of credit to the club of £20m each to fund the club if required and both have secured this on the assets of the company.

This of course doesn't mean they expect to use some or all of their monies but it is there to be drawn down on demand if required and in effect underwrites the credit worthiness of the club to trade.

I would guess non of Nick's money has been touched, although he will be being paid a sum for this facility, and that Sharon has had to dip into hers to keep the club solvent - maybe even a bit too much for her liking already if the report is true that we can't find the money to keep a starlet that at least one PL club coverts.

I must admit when I first heard that between them they had underwritten the club to the tune of £40m I did indeed believe the plan was to build on the car parks but of course that never happened, as like you I certainly didn't believe they were stupid enough to spend it on the club in a desperate lotto type gamble in staking everything on an attempt to get into the PL before their money ran out!

I therefore come all the way back in a full circle as to why Sharon, or anyone else would want to buy a football club as £40m can be spent (and wasted) in a blink of an eye without achieving anything.

Maybe Sharon is a little bonkers after all!

Maybe we should ask Kieran Maguire. Conn and Maguire seem to suffer from the same bonkers syndrome that if you lend money to a company at a rate of interest higher than you'd get on an ISA  you must be coining it in. Why has it never dawned on either of them that you can usually expect to get your money back when you want it if you invest in an ISA and there's every chance you'll never see much,if any, of it again if its a footie club?

Where do you suppose they get these ideas from?

I think Sharon's decided to give it a go for her own reasons but cosying up to the ST was a bit concerning. If she ever imagined that  the ST would amount to much I really would be worried about her. 

This line of credit business? We've seen some of the documents but not all of them and in that instance I prefer to apply financial logic.

My thinking was along the lines of how BWFC had a £100m line of credit from Moonshift as otherwise who would want to do business with a club £200m in debt and no obvious means (other than from the owners pocket) of continuing to pay its way?

Certainly Moonshift never put £100m into the club and neither will Nick nor probably Sharon either with their £20m apiece.

I don't rate Maguire or Conn myself, some people will believe anything they are told and Maguire and Conn seem overly found of their own voices imo.

As for the ST, if the BWSA has folded or in abeyance then I seem to have a recollection that clubs have some obligation to 'consult/communicate' with the local supporters body at least once a year and if I've remembered rightly and the BWSA is not at the moment available, then the ST are the only other alternative to turn to.

I think the more telling point is that the clubs owners have sent two paid employees to attend and not bother with the ST themselves - the message there is pretty clear to me.

18Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Sat Jan 23 2021, 09:05

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy wrote:

My thinking was along the lines of how BWFC had a £100m line of credit from Moonshift as otherwise who would want to do business with a club £200m in debt and no obvious means (other than from the owners pocket) of continuing to pay its way?

Certainly Moonshift never put £100m into the club and neither will Nick nor probably Sharon either with their £20m apiece.

I don't rate Maguire or Conn myself, some people will believe anything they are told and Maguire and Conn seem overly found of their own voices imo.

As for the ST, if the BWSA has folded or in abeyance then I seem to have a recollection that clubs have some obligation to 'consult/communicate' with the local supporters body at least once a year and if I've remembered rightly and the BWSA is not at the moment available, then the ST are the only other alternative to turn to.

I think the more telling point is that the clubs owners have sent two paid employees to attend and not bother with the ST themselves - the message there is pretty clear to me.

Flipping eck, Sluffy, how did you figure Moonshift never put £100m in?

Here are the figures from the audited accounts:

2007/08   £  4.5m
2008/09   £ 18.5m
2009/10   £ 62.0m (the year all the external debt was paid off)
2010/11   £ 14.0m
2011/12   £ 26.0m
2012/13   £ 26.3m
2013/14   £ 23.0m
2014/15   £ 11.2m
Total        £185.5m (includes £14.4m re-invested interest)

These figures do not include money invested by Eddie Davies/Moonshift/Fildraw before 2007/08 or after 2014/15.

And please, please, please don't come up with the daft idea that there might have been somebody else behind Moonshift, Fildraw or Eddie Davies.

Btw I don't think there's £20m apiece from Sharon and Nick either. I can't be 100% certain but I suspect this idea probably comes from a misunderstanding of the security charge documents on the Companies House file.

Conn and Maguire seem to have certain mistaken fixations which stops them thinking beyond the first thing that comes into their heads. There's little doubt that its political prejudice in Conn's case. Maybe it is in Maguire's too, if not quite as deep-seated in his case.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Sat Jan 23 2021, 11:06; edited 1 time in total

19Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Sat Jan 23 2021, 10:51

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Couldn’t the reason Lockett hasn’t been given a pro contract be because of squad numbers and the salary cap and not because the club is broke?

20Money troubles at the club? Empty Re: Money troubles at the club? Sat Jan 23 2021, 11:10

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

My thinking was along the lines of how BWFC had a £100m line of credit from Moonshift as otherwise who would want to do business with a club £200m in debt and no obvious means (other than from the owners pocket) of continuing to pay its way?

Certainly Moonshift never put £100m into the club and neither will Nick nor probably Sharon either with their £20m apiece.

I don't rate Maguire or Conn myself, some people will believe anything they are told and Maguire and Conn seem overly found of their own voices imo.

As for the ST, if the BWSA has folded or in abeyance then I seem to have a recollection that clubs have some obligation to 'consult/communicate' with the local supporters body at least once a year and if I've remembered rightly and the BWSA is not at the moment available, then the ST are the only other alternative to turn to.

I think the more telling point is that the clubs owners have sent two paid employees to attend and not bother with the ST themselves - the message there is pretty clear to me.

Flipping eck, Sluffy, how did you figure Moonshift never put £100m in?

Here are the figures from the audited accounts:

2007/08   £  4.5m
2008/09   £ 18.5m
2009/10   £ 62.0m (the year all the external debt was paid off)
2010/11   £ 14.0m
2011/12   £ 26.0m
2012/13   £ 26.3m
2013/14   £ 23.0m
2014/15   £ 11.2m
Total        £185.5m (includes £14.4m re-invested interest)

These figures do not include money invested by Eddie Davies/Moonshift/Fildraw before 2007/08 or after 2014/15.

And please, please, please don't come up with the daft idea that there might have been somebody else behind Moonshift, Fildraw or Eddie Davies.

Btw I don't think there's £20m apiece from Sharon and Nick either. I can't be 100% certain but I suspect this idea probably comes from a misunderstanding of the security charge documents on the Companies House file.

Conn and Maguire seem to have certain mistaken fixations which stops them thinking beyond the first thing that comes into their heads. There's little doubt that its political prejudice in Conn's case. Maybe it is in Maguire's too, if not quite as deep-seated.

Thanks for that Bob.

I didn't actually say Eddie/Moonshift didn't put in the millions, I know they did, I was however specifically mentioning the statement from Phil Gartside when the club was already in serious debt about the club being “in discussion with lenders regarding potential further borrowings in order to provide the company with adequate working capital facilities.” (statement from the club 2011 accounts) which we were told was this additional £100m line of credit from the Bank of Bermuda funded by Moonshift.

Maybe it was used in the end, I just assumed it was separate and additional to the funding Eddie was already underpinning the club with from Moonshift/Fildraw, so as to provide confidence to the market that there was money behind the club in order for them to continue to trade normally - and that Nick and Sharon had done similar with their £20m backing to the club.

I did a quick search to find Gartside's statement about this at the time but couldn't see it but I did find this which I'm sure will amuse you no doubt!

Bolton misery started with Eddie Davies, claims trust chairman

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

I too wasn't absolutely clear about whether the £20m was a combined amount from Nick and Sharon or two individual amounts of that sum, I believed it to be the former at first and changed my mind after seeing the Companies House documentation. I'm pleased to see you also have a similar uncertainty about it also.

As for Conn and Maguire they really aren't worth bothering about.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Reply to topic

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum