Bury | Page 59 | Vital Football

Bury

Luke Imp

Alert Team
Staff member
IMO neither Bury or Bolton should have started the season. In fact, regardless of any takeover, they shouldn't have been allowed to play a game until after the transfer deadline and the postponed games should have been played in midweek's prior to the January transfer window so everyone plays the same squad once.

Not ideal, but that's more of a level playing field than allowing Wycombe to win 2-0 against their U18 side yet come October, Bolton will no doubt field a completely different side.
 

57harry

Vital Squad Member
As has been said you need to look at the clubs assets as well as just the debt and other liabilities. City had current assets of £M 3.2 as at the last published accounts in June 18. One measure of looking at the short term financial situation is to compare the current assets £m 3.2 against the current liabilities of £m 3.6,which is a working capital defecit of £K 400. That is manageable although I would expect that defecit to be a lot larger at June 19.
 

Skip155

Vital Champions League
IMO neither Bury or Bolton should have started the season. In fact, regardless of any takeover, they shouldn't have been allowed to play a game until after the transfer deadline and the postponed games should have been played in midweek's prior to the January transfer window so everyone plays the same squad once.

Not ideal, but that's more of a level playing field than allowing Wycombe to win 2-0 against their U18 side yet come October, Bolton will no doubt field a completely different side.
This is my issue with the situation too. Possibly a transfer embargo to January might have maintained the integrity of the overall league but it’s not a level playing field anymore for the other clubs.
 
IMO neither Bury or Bolton should have started the season. In fact, regardless of any takeover, they shouldn't have been allowed to play a game until after the transfer deadline and the postponed games should have been played in midweek's prior to the January transfer window so everyone plays the same squad once.

Not ideal, but that's more of a level playing field than allowing Wycombe to win 2-0 against their U18 side yet come October, Bolton will no doubt field a completely different side.
Nothing to disagree with here.
 

buckielugger

Vital 1st Team Regular
IMO neither Bury or Bolton should have started the season. In fact, regardless of any takeover, they shouldn't have been allowed to play a game until after the transfer deadline and the postponed games should have been played in midweek's prior to the January transfer window so everyone plays the same squad once.

Not ideal, but that's more of a level playing field than allowing Wycombe to win 2-0 against their U18 side yet come October, Bolton will no doubt field a completely different side.

Very fair point.
And of course if transfer window had ended prior to start of season (which I think it did last season?) then this Wycombe/ Bolton match would have been played with same set of Bolton players we all will face.

Another failing by the EFL. And still no points deducted for either last season's missed Bolton game nor for the two missed games so far of Bury's.
It should be 6 pts off for each of these fixtures (so Bolton on to minus 18 pts & Bury on to minus 24 pts - so far).

Further point on the Bolton "squad", is there a rule in place whereby clubs name a first team squad? And if so for which competitions? I'm sure Premier clubs have to name such a squad for UEFA games.
 

The Imposter

Vital 1st Team Regular
Have Bury signed, or been allowed, to sign any players yet? They are going to have less first team pros than Bolton when - or if - they finally kick off their season.
 

Impartiality

Vital 1st Team Regular
I can't be the only one who is thinking how different things would be if the "Class of 92" had put their money and influence into Bury , rather than a completely artificial club like Salford City? Especially if you consider the Neville family connection with Bury.
The ego trip aside, Salford started with no debt and a much better prospect to throw their money at rather than throw it into a bottomless pit. I have also wondered why. If not Bury then why not Oldham Scholes home town.
 
7

79imp

Guest
I can't be the only one who is thinking how different things would be if the "Class of 92" had put their money and influence into Bury , rather than a completely artificial club like Salford City? Especially if you consider the Neville family connection with Bury.
It's a very valid point, but as Impartiality has alluded to, I think there's a major amount of ego in the mix; i.e. "look at how smart and clever we are to take a club from the depths of non-league to the FL." That's a jump of 5 or 6 leagues (or whatever it has been so far) compared to the one or two divisions they might have managed with Oldham or Bury (...unless they were prepared to sink in most of their savings from their playing days and fund a trip to the Premier League).
 

NottyImp

Vital Football Legend
It's a very valid point, but as Impartiality has alluded to, I think there's a major amount of ego in the mix; i.e. "look at how smart and clever we are to take a club from the depths of non-league to the FL." That's a jump of 5 or 6 leagues (or whatever it has been so far) compared to the one or two divisions they might have managed with Oldham or Bury (...unless they were prepared to sink in most of their savings from their playing days and fund a trip to the Premier League).
Agreed. Results - and promotions - come much quicker with money at non-League clubs.
 

Scotimp

Vital Football Legend
Two more league games in that time - Gillingham (H) and Rotherham (A). At least the EFL has set a final deadline with consequences clearly stated.

Perhaps Harry knows the answer to this: how long does a company have to pay creditors once a CVA has been agreed?