Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Bolton, Ebbsfleet now Bury (Clubs in trouble thread)
Comments
-
Serious question he bought it for a quid this season or last and who funded the playing staff no way bury could sustain a promotion push without someone funding itCovered End said:
He paid £1 and now wants £850K.nth london addick said:The bury fella in charge with the beard what’s his background in all this
I keep seeing him front it out on all forms of media saying this is not his doing and that he has set out what he agreed to do and get a CVA and managing the debt
Bolton could never sustain the spending under gartside was a crazy house that has taken a while to collapse
Enough said.
, I know Abdullah lezman at Oldham and he is many things but a crook after money out of the club he is not ,0 -
And in this instance he'd be rightRudders22 said:You know Roly is just waiting to come out now and have his say about the EFL.
1 -
The bit I don't get is how can an owner lend money to his club. Does anyone on here borrow money from themselves?
The EFL ought to stop that nonsense right now.
Oh yes and RD has been up to the same game himself.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/27/bury-takeover-cn-sporting-risk-collapses-hours-before-football-league-deadlinenth london addick said:
Serious question he bought it for a quid this season or last and who funded the playing staff no way bury could sustain a promotion push without someone funding itCovered End said:
He paid £1 and now wants £850K.nth london addick said:The bury fella in charge with the beard what’s his background in all this
I keep seeing him front it out on all forms of media saying this is not his doing and that he has set out what he agreed to do and get a CVA and managing the debt
Bolton could never sustain the spending under gartside was a crazy house that has taken a while to collapse
Enough said.
, I know Abdullah lezman at Oldham and he is many things but a crook after money out of the club he is not ,
0 -
-
Undoubtedly this dale fella has continued to Mss manage bury but the damage was done way before his timeCovered End said:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/27/bury-takeover-cn-sporting-risk-collapses-hours-before-football-league-deadlinenth london addick said:
Serious question he bought it for a quid this season or last and who funded the playing staff no way bury could sustain a promotion push without someone funding itCovered End said:
He paid £1 and now wants £850K.nth london addick said:The bury fella in charge with the beard what’s his background in all this
I keep seeing him front it out on all forms of media saying this is not his doing and that he has set out what he agreed to do and get a CVA and managing the debt
Bolton could never sustain the spending under gartside was a crazy house that has taken a while to collapse
Enough said.
, I know Abdullah lezman at Oldham and he is many things but a crook after money out of the club he is not ,3 -
Roland is almost unique amongst all the dodgy owners, as with him you sense it's more about his ego and being proved right than making a quick buck. Indeed there's something unique about someone having no interest in the club, wanting to sell it, refusing sensible bids BUT also keeping funding the club enough to keep it functioning.Henry Irving said:As we saw with Portsmouth, who were bought by someone who didn't exist, once a club is in trouble all the spivs smell blood and look for quick money.
We had Jimenez, Cash and Slater, Bury have Dale and Bolton have Anderson. All thought they could make money out of football and sod the risks.
None of which excuses Duchatelet BTW.
The EFL turned a blind eye again and again in order to avoid cancelled games or teams not finishing a season. But they just kicked the can down the road.
And once one club goes other creditors will take fright and we could see Macclesfield, Oldham and who knows who else.
A rational person would have sold us 18 months ago, as it would have saved him an awful lot of aggro and cut his losses...3 -
Yes, but it doesn't look like he bought them to save them.nth london addick said:
Undoubtedly this dale fella has continued to Mss manage bury but the damage was done way before his timeCovered End said:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/27/bury-takeover-cn-sporting-risk-collapses-hours-before-football-league-deadlinenth london addick said:
Serious question he bought it for a quid this season or last and who funded the playing staff no way bury could sustain a promotion push without someone funding itCovered End said:
He paid £1 and now wants £850K.nth london addick said:The bury fella in charge with the beard what’s his background in all this
I keep seeing him front it out on all forms of media saying this is not his doing and that he has set out what he agreed to do and get a CVA and managing the debt
Bolton could never sustain the spending under gartside was a crazy house that has taken a while to collapse
Enough said.
, I know Abdullah lezman at Oldham and he is many things but a crook after money out of the club he is not ,
More like to make big money from the train wreck.3 -
What’s the saying .. there for the grace of god go I ...
Feel desperately sad, not sorry, for the fans of Bury and Bolton. They’re the lifeblood and don’t deserve all of this shite. It could quite easily have been Charlton and it nearly was in 1984. But I think it’s been inevitable that a big club would go to the wall at some point because of the total mismanagement of football finances for the last 20 years.
In the premiership years, Bolton gambled vast amounts on some really talented players in the hope of reaching the UEFA cup without having the infrastructure or global appeal of the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs. I don’t include City or Chelsea because they got lucky with very rich owners. Bolton’s gamble failed because ultimately they couldn’t compete and they ended up buying bog standard players with no massive sell-on values and paying high wages. In my opinion it was always going to end in tears once their benefactor passed. Similar story to Blackburn with Jack Walker.
Perhaps this is a wake up call for many clubs, I don’t know. I hope this is a wake up call for the EFL and their fit and proper test and that we get the right people running OUR clubs. Big question is who’s next. I worry for the likes of Bournemouth because they’re ok whilst they’re in the premier league and have Eddie Howe but once that goes, will they plummet like a stone?1 -
Bolton’s ex owner waived about 150m of loans on his deathbed and they are STILL in this position.
Mis-management of the highest order.
I will say now Bolton will not get kicked out of the league.1 - Sponsored links:
-
He never had no notion of there even being a bury football club until he went to purchase them so I agree the man had not one decent intention.Covered End said:
Yes, but it doesn't look like he bought them to save them.nth london addick said:
Undoubtedly this dale fella has continued to Mss manage bury but the damage was done way before his timeCovered End said:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/27/bury-takeover-cn-sporting-risk-collapses-hours-before-football-league-deadlinenth london addick said:
Serious question he bought it for a quid this season or last and who funded the playing staff no way bury could sustain a promotion push without someone funding itCovered End said:
He paid £1 and now wants £850K.nth london addick said:The bury fella in charge with the beard what’s his background in all this
I keep seeing him front it out on all forms of media saying this is not his doing and that he has set out what he agreed to do and get a CVA and managing the debt
Bolton could never sustain the spending under gartside was a crazy house that has taken a while to collapse
Enough said.
, I know Abdullah lezman at Oldham and he is many things but a crook after money out of the club he is not ,
More like to make big money from the train wreck.
if he had managed to buy them save them and sell them on for a profit I see nothing wrong with that , he has failed on certain aspects which highlights the short comings
1 -
I don't think Bury will either.MrOneLung said:Bolton’s ex owner waived about 150m of loans on his deathbed and they are STILL in this position.
Mis-management of the highest order.
I will say now Bolton will not get kicked out of the league.
Another deadline has been and gone, but the EFL has been so lenient because it’s pretty much their fault Bury is in this mess as they failed to do any checks on Dale.
0 -
Chris_from_Sidcup said:
I don't think Bury will either.MrOneLung said:Bolton’s ex owner waived about 150m of loans on his deathbed and they are STILL in this position.
Mis-management of the highest order.
I will say now Bolton will not get kicked out of the league.
Another deadline has been and gone, but the EFL has been so lenient because it’s pretty much their fault Bury is in this mess as they failed to do any checks on Dale.
From the quote covered end shared the failings are not Dales, I think he comes across terribly I also think he has been caught in certain respects of having his hand in a near empty cookie jar taking the last few biscuits.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
I don't think Bury will either.MrOneLung said:Bolton’s ex owner waived about 150m of loans on his deathbed and they are STILL in this position.
Mis-management of the highest order.
I will say now Bolton will not get kicked out of the league.
Another deadline has been and gone, but the EFL has been so lenient because it’s pretty much their fault Bury is in this mess as they failed to do any checks on Dale.
I feel for bury more than Bolton and if I could choose only one to survive it would unfortunately be them0 -
Part of me thinks someone needs to be kicked out of the football league to act as a wake up call but the rest of me thinks no fucker would pay any attention when chasing the promised land of the premier league6
-
22 -
The lack of people attending live games and the general little interest for football outside the premier league is another factor clubs just cannot survive.5
-
How long before Premier League II and regionalised divisions outside of that ? Unless money is redistributed more fairly then Football in England as we’ve know it has seen its day. Very sad.4
-
Pay X amount for well over 100 games in the Premier League / Football League from the comfort of your own homepalarsehater said:The lack of people attending live games and the general little interest for football outside the premier league is another factor clubs just cannot survive.
Or pay a similar amount for just twenty three games in a year0 -
You are of course correct, but let's not forget that it is Sky and the Premier League that has instilled unprecedented levels of money and greed in the English game. Killing football since 1992.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Sky aren't to blame for the EFL letting Dale take over without them doing a proper check on him and making him show proof of funds.ForeverAddickted said:Covered End said:
No, because there was little to no TV money, nor positional place money.ForeverAddickted said:SKY and the Premier League have created the desperation for teams to reach the top flight at all costs
Look at Huddersfield for example or Norwich of late, both examples of clubs that are currently being ran properly
They leapt for the platform that is the top flight, havent been able to cling on at times but got the TV money, got the parachute money and should be set for a while
Everyone else is just as guilty of doing the same
I wasnt quite 10 when the Premier League was introduced but dont remember Football much before then
Was there such desperation to reach the First Division in the 70s / 80s from clubs?
Also, some time previously home gate money was also shared between the two clubs playing.
Man U then went from winning no titles for 20/30 years (whatever), to being "the" club to beat.
Says it all then for those who claim SKY cant really be to blame..killerandflash said:
Not really, as back then the financial difference between the first and second divisions wasn't that large. Bigger gates of course, but the TV money was insignificant. It was the creation of the PL which revolutionised football, but for a few years beforehand the big clubs had been scheming to find a way of breaking awayForeverAddickted said:SKY and the Premier League have created the desperation for teams to reach the top flight at all costs
Look at Huddersfield for example or Norwich of late, both examples of clubs that are currently being ran properly
They leapt for the platform that is the top flight, havent been able to cling on at times but got the TV money, got the parachute money and should be set for a while
Everyone else is just as guilty of doing the same
I wasnt quite 10 when the Premier League was introduced but dont remember Football much before then
Was there such desperation to reach the First Division in the 70s / 80s from clubs?
Smaller clubs than Bury manage to survive perfectly well. This disaster is all on Dale and the EFL, not Sky.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Sky and the Premier league provided the money, they never made anyone spend beyond their means to chase it. Yes I know that's simplistic but so is blaming Sky for a 3rd tier club going out of business.Croydon said:
You are of course correct, but let's not forget that it is Sky and the Premier League that has instilled unprecedented levels of money and greed in the English game. Killing football since 1992.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Sky aren't to blame for the EFL letting Dale take over without them doing a proper check on him and making him show proof of funds.ForeverAddickted said:Covered End said:
No, because there was little to no TV money, nor positional place money.ForeverAddickted said:SKY and the Premier League have created the desperation for teams to reach the top flight at all costs
Look at Huddersfield for example or Norwich of late, both examples of clubs that are currently being ran properly
They leapt for the platform that is the top flight, havent been able to cling on at times but got the TV money, got the parachute money and should be set for a while
Everyone else is just as guilty of doing the same
I wasnt quite 10 when the Premier League was introduced but dont remember Football much before then
Was there such desperation to reach the First Division in the 70s / 80s from clubs?
Also, some time previously home gate money was also shared between the two clubs playing.
Man U then went from winning no titles for 20/30 years (whatever), to being "the" club to beat.
Says it all then for those who claim SKY cant really be to blame..killerandflash said:
Not really, as back then the financial difference between the first and second divisions wasn't that large. Bigger gates of course, but the TV money was insignificant. It was the creation of the PL which revolutionised football, but for a few years beforehand the big clubs had been scheming to find a way of breaking awayForeverAddickted said:SKY and the Premier League have created the desperation for teams to reach the top flight at all costs
Look at Huddersfield for example or Norwich of late, both examples of clubs that are currently being ran properly
They leapt for the platform that is the top flight, havent been able to cling on at times but got the TV money, got the parachute money and should be set for a while
Everyone else is just as guilty of doing the same
I wasnt quite 10 when the Premier League was introduced but dont remember Football much before then
Was there such desperation to reach the First Division in the 70s / 80s from clubs?
Smaller clubs than Bury manage to survive perfectly well. This disaster is all on Dale and the EFL, not Sky.
In real terms I would imagine Bury got/get more this season through central payments than Man United did in 1991 (I am guessing).0 -
Many clubs ARE operating on a realistic and sustainable budget, it really isn't that difficult especially for lower league teams that don't have legacy PL wage billsCafc43v3r said:
Sky and the Premier league provided the money, they never made anyone spend beyond their means to chase it. Yes I know that's simplistic but so is blaming Sky for a 3rd tier club going out of business.Croydon said:
You are of course correct, but let's not forget that it is Sky and the Premier League that has instilled unprecedented levels of money and greed in the English game. Killing football since 1992.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Sky aren't to blame for the EFL letting Dale take over without them doing a proper check on him and making him show proof of funds.ForeverAddickted said:Covered End said:
No, because there was little to no TV money, nor positional place money.ForeverAddickted said:SKY and the Premier League have created the desperation for teams to reach the top flight at all costs
Look at Huddersfield for example or Norwich of late, both examples of clubs that are currently being ran properly
They leapt for the platform that is the top flight, havent been able to cling on at times but got the TV money, got the parachute money and should be set for a while
Everyone else is just as guilty of doing the same
I wasnt quite 10 when the Premier League was introduced but dont remember Football much before then
Was there such desperation to reach the First Division in the 70s / 80s from clubs?
Also, some time previously home gate money was also shared between the two clubs playing.
Man U then went from winning no titles for 20/30 years (whatever), to being "the" club to beat.
Says it all then for those who claim SKY cant really be to blame..killerandflash said:
Not really, as back then the financial difference between the first and second divisions wasn't that large. Bigger gates of course, but the TV money was insignificant. It was the creation of the PL which revolutionised football, but for a few years beforehand the big clubs had been scheming to find a way of breaking awayForeverAddickted said:SKY and the Premier League have created the desperation for teams to reach the top flight at all costs
Look at Huddersfield for example or Norwich of late, both examples of clubs that are currently being ran properly
They leapt for the platform that is the top flight, havent been able to cling on at times but got the TV money, got the parachute money and should be set for a while
Everyone else is just as guilty of doing the same
I wasnt quite 10 when the Premier League was introduced but dont remember Football much before then
Was there such desperation to reach the First Division in the 70s / 80s from clubs?
Smaller clubs than Bury manage to survive perfectly well. This disaster is all on Dale and the EFL, not Sky.
In real terms I would imagine Bury got/get more this season through central payments than Man United did in 1991 (I am guessing).0 -
Phil Parkinson on Sky Sports Debate now.0
-
The point being about Sky is that it’s not all about clubs trying to chase getting into the so called promised land. It’s far greater than that, because assuming that is the reason as to why they have a share of the blame is too simplistic.
Sky have provided the platform for the Premier League to be what it is now. They have put the money in and shown it worldwide to enhance the interest and revenue streams going into the clubs in the Premier League.
However, what they have done is make the rich and bigger clubs, even richer and bigger. That has a direct and indirect cause to the clubs without a chance of ever reaching anywhere near that level, one because of their geographical nature in the country, and also because potential football supporters are more inclined to go and watch a richer club funded by Sky’s original input because they’re now more attractive.
The sport is no longer fair or even close to it in the slightest. The disproportionate distribution of money has meant that clubs like Bury because of a number of factors are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. Okay they shouldn’t ever be living beyond their means, I agree entirely, but it wouldn’t be so bad without the gap being as ridiculous as it is, all starting from the input and influence Sky has on the English game.5 -
The owner that pulled out healthy fees for himself. The owner that charged interest on loans, sometimes up to 10%. The owner that received multi million payments. The owner that had incurred huge debts under his watch. The owner who a decade ago paid 2 directors a combined figure in excess of 1 million. The owner that had a hotel attached to the club losing millions in a year. Perhaps ultimately part of problem.MrOneLung said:Bolton’s ex owner waived about 150m of loans on his deathbed and they are STILL in this position.
Mis-management of the highest order.
I will say now Bolton will not get kicked out of the league.0 -
Bolton averaged 14000 crowds last season. That should be enough to run a reasonable football team once they're rid off their top earners if they're sensible.Sage said:The point being about Sky is that it’s not all about clubs trying to chase getting into the so called promised land. It’s far greater than that, because assuming that is the reason as to why they have a share of the blame is too simplistic.
Sky have provided the platform for the Premier League to be what it is now. They have put the money in and shown it worldwide to enhance the interest and revenue streams going into the clubs in the Premier League.
However, what they have done is make the rich and bigger clubs, even richer and bigger. That has a direct and indirect cause to the clubs without a chance of ever reaching anywhere near that level, one because of their geographical nature in the country, and also because potential football supporters are more inclined to go and watch a richer club funded by Sky’s original input because they’re now more attractive.
The sport is no longer fair or even close to it in the slightest. The disproportionate distribution of money has meant that clubs like Bury because of a number of factors are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. Okay they shouldn’t ever be living beyond their means, I agree entirely, but it wouldn’t be so bad without the gap being as ridiculous as it is, all starting from the input and influence Sky has on the English game.
Not a massive fan of the Brentford model, but they are really good at identifying talent and selling it on for a profit to the PL. That's one way the money from the PL comes down to lower levels0 -
Like him, liked him as manager too. Speaks good sense.Covered End said:Phil Parkinson on Sky Sports Debate now.2 -
The roots of this are the FA's appalling decision in 1991 to buckle to a few gobby, venal club owners like Dein, Bates and Sugar and let the FAPL be formed as a separate entity and let it negotiate with Sky and keep all the money. While Sky certainly fostered its relationship with those arseholes, at the end of the day all they wanted was the right to show live first division football. If the FA had stuck to their remit and negotiated those rights, and decided how to distribute those rights down through football, Sky would not have been concerned. And where would we be now? A football country like Germany IMO, where maybe we wouldn't have quite so many foreign superstars in our League, or certainly quite so many crap players in the Second Division earning £40k per week, but also without the dreadful fate awaiting Bury and Bolton.
That's where it started, folks, and anyone who wants to argue that point with me better make sure they at least read Tom Bower's "Broken Dreams" first; where in passing you will also read an interesting couple of references to Richard Murray...14 -
Yes but selling players to the Premier League is not sustainable, especially not for every club in the division(s). If your policy is to do that to be able to survive and compete, that’s fine but you’re constantly relying on being able to develop the players to be good enough for them to be sold.killerandflash said:
Bolton averaged 14000 crowds last season. That should be enough to run a reasonable football team once they're rid off their top earners if they're sensible.Sage said:The point being about Sky is that it’s not all about clubs trying to chase getting into the so called promised land. It’s far greater than that, because assuming that is the reason as to why they have a share of the blame is too simplistic.
Sky have provided the platform for the Premier League to be what it is now. They have put the money in and shown it worldwide to enhance the interest and revenue streams going into the clubs in the Premier League.
However, what they have done is make the rich and bigger clubs, even richer and bigger. That has a direct and indirect cause to the clubs without a chance of ever reaching anywhere near that level, one because of their geographical nature in the country, and also because potential football supporters are more inclined to go and watch a richer club funded by Sky’s original input because they’re now more attractive.
The sport is no longer fair or even close to it in the slightest. The disproportionate distribution of money has meant that clubs like Bury because of a number of factors are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. Okay they shouldn’t ever be living beyond their means, I agree entirely, but it wouldn’t be so bad without the gap being as ridiculous as it is, all starting from the input and influence Sky has on the English game.
Not a massive fan of the Brentford model, but they are really good at identifying talent and selling it on for a profit to the PL. That's one way the money from the PL comes down to lower levels
The vast majority of money being spent on transfer fees from Premier League clubs goes abroad. It doesn’t stay in the English game so it doesn’t filter down the leagues anywhere near enough to help clubs to be able to survive.3 -
How low can SSN and Roland's lap dog go?
1
