Bolton Wanderers | Page 21 | Vital Football

Bolton Wanderers

Pope John XXIII said:
Premier League is somewhat different, with the fashion now being for the hyper rich to use someone else's money, preferably the club's own, to fund everything including their own dividends, as with Man Utd.

Or for the club to be the 'sporting prestige' arm of a major foreign business or political figure
Click to expand...
Does your analysis fit our club in any way?
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Premier League is somewhat different, with the fashion now being for the hyper rich to use someone else's money, preferably the club's own, to fund everything including their own dividends, as with Man Utd.

Or for the club to be the 'sporting prestige' arm of a major foreign business or political figure
Click to expand...

Very few Clubs pay dividends; the ones that do pay them, do so out of the previous seasons profits, after taxation has been taken into account, that is the only legal way to pay them.

They are the rules throughout business.

I have no problem with owners taking dividends because they have to make a profit to do so; if Clubs turn over a profit there should be no financial problems

The bit about Sporting prestige is bang on; the manner in which Sovereign wealth funds and Foreign Governments are allowed to completely distort and corrupt sporting events is farcical.

There is more than enough money in the game to prevent the situations like Bury happening; the fact is the Clubs with their noses in the trough do not give a fuck.

Bolton are a prime example; they did not care about any of the lower league Clubs when they were flush with their PL income, now that has come back to bite them.
 
jbacsta said:
Does your analysis fit our club in any way?
Click to expand...

We do not make a profit so it cant be compared to how our Club is run.

There was a paper profit declared the season before last; that was the result of debt write offs.

The only other time we turned a profit was early in Doughty's reign; that was due to selling the Crown Jewels.

The financial state of the Club is probably the best it has been in since it turned Private; well, according to the Accounts filed with Companies House it is.

That is unless Companies House have been fed an agenda.
 
All fans are rightly saying how terrible this is but you ask lots of fans who one of the worst owners is & Mike Ashley would I’d guess be pretty high up that list. Over half the “Geordie nation” are in open revolt, yet Newcastle are one the only financially viable clubs.

The constant need to spend, spend, spend needs addressing & that is no easy thing given tv money, players wages, transfer fees. FFP is relatively toothless if like Direby you can find the loopholes.
 
Do many owners of Premier clubs make money , as that article implies ? Don't know what the answer is , but surely the owners of most of the clubs haven't been taking money ? For every Man Utd there is a Man City, Chelsea and most of the clubs aren't there long enough to make vast profits. The split of football money is unfair, but Bury's problems were caused by the owners, and I would guess Bolton's were too. The powers that be (EFL?) need to ensure clubs are run on a sustainable basis .
 
Lienking said:
Do many owners of Premier clubs make money , as that article implies ? Don't know what the answer is , but surely the owners of most of the clubs haven't been taking money ? For every Man Utd there is a Man City, Chelsea and most of the clubs aren't there long enough to make vast profits. The split of football money is unfair, but Bury's problems were caused by the owners, and I would guess Bolton's were too. The powers that be (EFL?) need to ensure clubs are run on a sustainable basis .
Click to expand...

The article was alluding to the amounts of money leaving the game; most of it off shore.

The beneficiaries are not necessarily the Clubs; more like the players and their agents.

The more money that leaves off shore the more the Clubs want; its nowt to do with profit.

While that is happening on such a large scale there will never be any money left to trickle down; not that trickle down economics has ever worked.

You can see the utter contempt that Clubs in the lower leagues are treated with when you look at how the Academy systems work.

PL payments to the lower leagues are directly linked to unfettered access to Academies run by the lower league Clubs.

The EFL clubs do not help themselves; the are largely self regulated and you do not find Turkey's voting for Christmas.
 
mao tse tung said:
The article was alluding to the amounts of money leaving the game; most of it off shore.

The beneficiaries are not necessarily the Clubs; more like the players and their agents.

The more money that leaves off shore the more the Clubs want; its nowt to do with profit.

While that is happening on such a large scale there will never be any money left to trickle down; not that trickle down economics has ever worked.

You can see the utter contempt that Clubs in the lower leagues are treated with when you look at how the Academy systems work.

PL payments to the lower leagues are directly linked to unfettered access to Academies run by the lower league Clubs.

The EFL clubs do not help themselves; the are largely self regulated and you do not find Turkey's voting for Christmas.
Click to expand...

I hate the Premier League and won't pay for Sky , but despite the unfair split of money it still isn't really their fault that lower league teams are in a mess. Money may go abroad through players and agents, but a lot of the money must come in from abroad. Not sure what the latest position is, but how much money have Abramovic, the Man City owners etc put into the clubs, not to mention the Premier League foreign rights. Bury pawned their ground for property development, Bolton have a hotel (no idea if it was financially beneficial or not) even Derby have sold their ground. The Derby move may seem like a good move now, but what happens if they lose control of the ground like Coventry did? The big problem is dodgy owners, owners who can't run their own businesses properly, never mind the clubs, and the poor EFL controls that allow clubs to get into debt

I guess there is more money in the EFL than there has ever been (except possibly the ITV digital era ?), but most of it is wasted chasing rainbows.
 
Lienking said:
I hate the Premier League and won't pay for Sky , but despite the unfair split of money it still isn't really their fault that lower league teams are in a mess. Money may go abroad through players and agents, but a lot of the money must come in from abroad. Not sure what the latest position is, but how much money have Abramovic, the Man City owners etc put into the clubs, not to mention the Premier League foreign rights. Bury pawned their ground for property development, Bolton have a hotel (no idea if it was financially beneficial or not) even Derby have sold their ground. The Derby move may seem like a good move now, but what happens if they lose control of the ground like Coventry did? The big problem is dodgy owners, owners who can't run their own businesses properly, never mind the clubs, and the poor EFL controls that allow clubs to get into debt

I guess there is more money in the EFL than there has ever been (except possibly the ITV digital era ?), but most of it is wasted chasing rainbows.
Click to expand...
Isnt chasing rainbows what its all about?
 
jbacsta said:
Isnt chasing rainbows what its all about?
Click to expand...

It is, but if 20 clubs can chase a rainbow for £10 million each on a sustainable basis, why are they allowed to build up debts chasing the same rainbow ? Rich owners can still put money in, but not in a manner where they leave the club in debt.
 
Lienking said:
I hate the Premier League and won't pay for Sky , but despite the unfair split of money it still isn't really their fault that lower league teams are in a mess. Money may go abroad through players and agents, but a lot of the money must come in from abroad. Not sure what the latest position is, but how much money have Abramovic, the Man City owners etc put into the clubs, not to mention the Premier League foreign rights. Bury pawned their ground for property development, Bolton have a hotel (no idea if it was financially beneficial or not) even Derby have sold their ground. The Derby move may seem like a good move now, but what happens if they lose control of the ground like Coventry did? The big problem is dodgy owners, owners who can't run their own businesses properly, never mind the clubs, and the poor EFL controls that allow clubs to get into debt

I guess there is more money in the EFL than there has ever been (except possibly the ITV digital era ?), but most of it is wasted chasing rainbows.
Click to expand...

I agree that the unfair split of money is not the sole cause of the financial plight of many lower league Clubs, and that mismanagement is far greater contributory factor.

The problem in the lower Leagues is the level of self regulation; the 72 members of the EFL are all guilty of setting rules that are easy to circumvent, and elect to have penalties that punish the supporters more than the owners when rules are actually broken.

Of course the owners will claim that they are walking a financial tight rope and need every tool available to them to get them through a season.

That is all well and good until you come up against unscrupulous owners who take out pay day loans using the Clubs assets as collateral; and the big kick in the bollocks is that none of the chicanery is illegal.

It is time for the self regulation to stop and for the EFL to put in place a regulatory framework which prevents owners from pawning or taking out charges on Club assets.

Local authorities can play their part as well; Club assets should be reclassified as Community assets which will be an added deterrent to anyone who attempts asset stripping through the back door.

I'm not so sure there is that much money coming in from abroad, particularly from the owners.

Apart from the money Abramovic paid Ken Bates when buying the Chelsea, he does not appear to have spent too much of his wealth on the Club.

Chelsea appear to be financed by PL money and debts racked up guaranteed by Abramovic; no doubt the debts will be used in a very creative manner when he decides to sell the club.

Manchester City is a different kettle of fish; they are owned by a Sovereign wealth fund who appear to have diplomatic immunity when it comes to being punished for breaking rules.

The owners at United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are in the other camp; they will be taking money out - I just cannot see the likes of Kroenke, Joe Lewis, Fenway and the Glaziers being in the game for altruistic reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.