Bolton Troubles (1 Viewer)

[jto123]

Another club in a financial mess.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if the disparity between the top league and the rest is really the issue. Surely there's a case for clubs outside the premier league to come together and demand more support from the top. At some point it's going to be most clubs affected by this, not just Bolton, Cov, Blackpool etc.

 

---

[Briles]

The main issue is the EFL's interpretation of "Fit & Proper" Owners. You've got us, with SISU, who have no sports teams in their portfolio but were able to "save the club" thus making the EFL look competent. Bolton, who were allowed to fall further and further into debt over a period of years after relegation. Blackpool's Owen Oysten, a man jailed for raping a 16 year old girl in the 90s and found guilty of abusing majority shareholder status to asset strip the club to recover losses. Roland Duchâtelet at Charlton, who just buys shares in clubs but is essentially a full time millionaire politician who invented his own political movement advocating a "basic income guarantee for all citizens" This is the guy who stopped free water and breakfasts for academy players to "cut costs" . Until the EFL put more stringent checks in place, and see a clear business plan and model that has to be adhered to, we will end up with these cretins running and ruining clubs.

 

[bawtryneal]

The problem is anybody with a brain would not actually buy a football club so it narrows the ownership field down to the type of owners you describe above
Unless you are a billionaire on an ego trip it is a mad world.

 

[bawtryneal]

Bassini - A Watford viewpoint.... - Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

This article sums it up

 

[sw88]

Caught a bit of Talk a sport the other day and they were chatting to the Forest Green owner.

They mentioned this ‘fit and proper’ test but apparently by the EFL’s own admission that is a fictitious thing? As long as proof of funds can be provided then that is all required, and probably explains why so many clubs are falling short when it comes to actually having funds to operate as a football club. Us. Charlton. Blackpool. Bolton. The list is probably a lot longer

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Problem is fit and proper is objective. What is Fit and proper? And playing devils advocate, why are SISU in the eyes of law and EFL Rules improper?

To us they are, but business-wise they’re only guilty of reducing our overheads, The stadium dispute is the main issue, but given how poor the deal was for us, why are they not fit?

Charlton’s owner has said if he knew the full story he wouldn’t have bought them. Why are owners expected to fund mounting losses? I read an article from him on the FL buying the club off him - he makes a lot of sense.

Of course, Bassini who’s been disqualified previously, don’t get why he is allowed to buy Bolton, same as Ciellino and the allegations about Forests owner.

 

[jto123]

The problem is anybody with a brain would not actually buy a football club so it narrows the ownership field down to the type of owners you describe above
Unless you are a billionaire on an ego trip it is a mad world.

I think this is true for clubs outside the Premier League. In which case surely there's an argument for all EFL clubs to demand more of the pie. Only with a better chance of profit do get get better owners etc. I get that its wishful thinking to fight the power of the Premier League, but you would still question why clubs have not been more proactive in this area.

 

[Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon]

I think this is true for clubs outside the Premier League. In which case surely there's an argument for all EFL clubs to demand more of the pie. Only with a better chance of profit do get get better owners etc. I get that its wishful thinking to fight the power of the Premier League, but you would still question why clubs have not been more proactive in this area.

The bigger clubs in the PL would probably prefer a breakaway super league with europe's elite so they could screw ever more cash out of it all. Anything that remotely levels the playing field will be avoided. The arguement would presumably be that they shouldnt be 'penalised' for the mismanagement of clubs in the lower leagues.

I'd honestly not be surprised if some of the bigger clubs tried to promote some form of closed-shop at the top whereby only clubs with sufficient 'brand' were allowed in.

 

[jto123]

The bigger clubs in the PL would probably prefer a breakaway super league with europe's elite so they could screw ever more cash out of it all. Anything that remotely levels the playing field will be avoided. The arguement would presumably be that they shouldnt be 'penalised' for the mismanagement of clubs in the lower leagues.

I'd honestly not be surprised if some of the bigger clubs tried to promote some form of closed-shop at the top whereby only clubs with sufficient 'brand' were allowed in.

Yeah, that's been rumoured for a long time. As far as I'm concerned any league that doesn't have relegation loses all legitimacy.

 

[chiefdave]

The problem is anybody with a brain would not actually buy a football club so it narrows the ownership field down to the type of owners you describe above
Unless you are a billionaire on an ego trip it is a mad world.

Completely agree. Until football clubs become self sustaining, and there seems no real push towards that, you will always have this issue. Make clubs self sufficient and you'd have a queue of moderately successful local businessmen who actually give a shit wanting to takeover.

They mentioned this ‘fit and proper’ test but apparently by the EFL’s own admission that is a fictitious thing?

It's self certification, you basically fill a form in to confirm you're not disqualified from running a company. Portsmouth had an owner at one point that there's a good chance didn't actually exist and he still passed!

Problem is fit and proper is objective. What is Fit and proper?

And that's the problem. What football fans want is someone to come in, throw tens of millions at the club and if there isn't success walk away and write it off.
How many of the owners fans moan aren't fit and proper have actually done anything that would be frowned upon with any other business?

 

[MusicDating]

And if Sunderland don't go up this season, I suspect they'll have a few years of moaning that their owners are rubbish, but they won't have a choice but to cut costs with their losses.

Maybe in a few years we'll view SISU as visionary leaders with their prescient cost-cutting...

(insert Hill83 sarcasm gif here)

 

[hill83]

(insert Hill83 sarcasm gif here)

 

[LilleSkyBlue]

Great film

 

[oucho]

The bigger clubs in the PL would probably prefer a breakaway super league with europe's elite so they could screw ever more cash out of it all. Anything that remotely levels the playing field will be avoided. The arguement would presumably be that they shouldnt be 'penalised' for the mismanagement of clubs in the lower leagues.

I'd honestly not be surprised if some of the bigger clubs tried to promote some form of closed-shop at the top whereby only clubs with sufficient 'brand' were allowed in.

The likes of Man U, Arsenal et al will ultimately aim to have bilateral TV rights deals with broadcasters, independent of Premier League collective bargaining. The top end clubs don't want even semi equality with the likes of Burnley, Bournemouth and Southampton who are worth so much less in broadcast revenue terms. I believe the big Spanish clubs do this already. This is part of the reason for these clubs having their own TV channels, they could ultimately broadcast their own games and resell the rights on to other stations.

The proposed super League may never happen but don't expect that the FL 'demanding' more from the PL will result in anything other than a polite ''up yours". The PL earns all the wealth and do not see the need to donate any of it to clubs beneath them, any more than EFL teams see the need to donate more money than present to the non league.

Everyone thinks they're due more from those above but that they don't owe anything to those below them. As David Gilmour once sang:
Money...get back
share it fairly but
keep your hands off my stack.

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

Completely agree. Until football clubs become self sustaining, and there seems no real push towards that, you will always have this issue. Make clubs self sufficient and you'd have a queue of moderately successful local businessmen who actually give a shit wanting to takeover.

It's self certification, you basically fill a form in to confirm you're not disqualified from running a company. Portsmouth had an owner at one point that there's a good chance didn't actually exist and he still passed!

And that's the problem. What football fans want is someone to come in, throw tens of millions at the club and if there isn't success walk away and write it off.
How many of the owners fans moan aren't fit and proper have actually done anything that would be frowned upon with any other business?

I think what most fans want is an owner who cares, who is transparent in what they do and who communicates with them. Yes, there are idiot fans at every club, yobbos who think it is okay to throw stuff at other fans, or those who come on to a forum calling for the manager's head after a couple of defeats. I can see that these sort of fans would expect owners to do as you describe above.
Most fans have realistic expectations and so long as the owner is honest, shows that they have the best intentions of the club at heart and explains things, most sensible fans would accept this.
Sisu aren't hated because they haven't thrown shed loads of money at the club. They are hated because they have abused their position as custodians of the club in multiple ways that we are all aware of and that don't need explaining again.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Problem for the EFL in this case is the only person looking to take over is obviously another dodgy fuck. They either say yes to him and deal with the problems again in a few years or say no and have a club the size of Bolton go pop. Lose lose and until there is major root and branch reform there isn't much that can be done.

 

[stevefloyd]

Sisu fit and proper? They have to a certain extent asset stripped us tried to bully the council into selling them the Ricoh on the cheap and failed but have now seemed to realise that they have to try and run it a little less dictatorial and appear to have turned the corner in terms of success for the club ie checkatrade win and promotion plus highest league finishes for a few years so i guess the efl look at them and think they are fit and proper no matter what shite we have to put up with

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Very annoying listening to radio 5 pundits. £1bn split between the professional clubs from championship to league 2 would help rather than give the team finishing bottom of the premiership £100m for finishing last. The game is set up for teams to go fits up. It’s not just Bolton or owners its the whole system of huge rewards for a few and pittance for others,

 

[skybluegod]

Sisu fit and proper? They have to a certain extent asset stripped us tried to bully the council into selling them the Ricoh on the cheap and failed but have now seemed to realise that they have to try and run it a little less dictatorial and appear to have turned the corner in terms of success for the club ie checkatrade win and promotion plus highest league finishes for a few years so i guess the efl look at them and think they are fit and proper no matter what shite we have to put up with

And yet another one sided view. 'Bully the council' Get real.

 

[Nick]

I think it needs to be decided whether football clubs will be businesses or not.

For example the "asset stripping" stuff, what assets have been stripped with us? I can understand if there's a club where everything is sold off and the money goes to the owner (in this case you can see the Bolton bloke) but at other clubs where owners actually put millions in, they will want that money back at some point.

The fix to all of this is much stricter FFP rules where a club can only spend what it earns and nothing else, it will prevent money the club doesn't have been thrown about and then going up shit creek when the gamble doesn't work.

 

[stevefloyd]

And yet another one sided view. 'Bully the council' Get real.

I bow to your superior knowledge

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I think it needs to be decided whether football clubs will be businesses or not.

For example the "asset stripping" stuff, what assets have been stripped with us? I can understand if there's a club where everything is sold off and the money goes to the owner (in this case you can see the Bolton bloke) but at other clubs where owners actually put millions in, they will want that money back at some point.

The fix to all of this is much stricter FFP rules where a club can only spend what it earns and nothing else, it will prevent money the club doesn't have been thrown about and then going up shit creek when the gamble doesn't work.

Some mix of ffp that doesn’t include tv money would be sensible but I don’t know how it could work

 

[skybluegod]

I bow to your superior knowledge

How have they Asset stripped? Please show where Sisu have taken any Money out of CCFC? Do you accept that the council tried to sell off the stadium to Wasps before we withheld any rent, and the subsequent litigation stemmed from underhand Council tactics? It's been a fight with punches from both sides. not bullying.

 

[skybluetony176]

How have they Asset stripped? Please show where Sisu have taken any Money out of CCFC? Do you accept that the council tried to sell off the stadium to Wasps before we withheld any rent, and the subsequent litigation stemmed from underhand Council tactics? It's been a fight with punches from both sides. not bullying.

They didn’t. ACL did look at acquiring Wasps before the rent strike though. The litigation had no merit, hence it failed.

 

[skybluegod]

They didn’t. ACL did look at acquiring Wasps before the rent strike though. The litigation had no merit, hence it failed.

ACL in which the council held a 50% stake?

As I say both sides are in the wrong, doesn't make Sisu Unfit to be owners. Just makes them typical businessmen( and Women)

Edit: i'm also not talking about legal merit, I am talking about 'fit and proper' Would argue that the CCC isn't exactly that either.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Sisu didn’t asset strip because we didn’t have any assets to begin with. We’ve obviously gone backwards under them and they’re poor owners but asset striping is a pretty ludicrous claim.

 

[skybluegod]

Sisu didn’t asset strip because we didn’t have any assets to begin with. We’ve obviously gone backwards under them and they’re poor owners but asset striping is a pretty ludicrous claim.

Yep agree, no doubt we have gone backwards, and they haven't invested as many would have liked, but in reality if we had not had the Ricoh issues (something they were landed with), something that was caused by many sides, then we would probably not have so much angst towards them.

 

[stevefloyd]

How have they Asset stripped? Please show where Sisu have taken any Money out of CCFC? Do you accept that the council tried to sell off the stadium to Wasps before we withheld any rent, and the subsequent litigation stemmed from underhand Council tactics? It's been a fight with punches from both sides. not bullying.

I bow to your superior superior knowledge

 

[stevefloyd]

Yep agree, no doubt we have gone backwards, and they haven't invested as many would have liked, but in reality if we had not had the Ricoh issues (something they were landed with), something that was caused by many sides, then we would probably not have so much angst towards them.

I did say to an extent maybe they needed to sell assets and maybe strip was the wrong choice of word perhaps streamline would have been better

 

[Nick]

Bolton do look fucked though unless somebody comes in sharpish to take them over.

 

[6 Generations]

In the event of not completing all of their fixtures, Bolton could possibly be expelled from the EFL.

Additionally, all league results this season can be expunged, having much wider implications for all clubs in terms of League position.

 

[Nick]

Imagine if a team did the double over them so lose 6 points and means they don't get promoted!

 

[Liquid Gold]

Surely they can get the kids to play their last two games.

 

[Nick]

Surely they can get the kids to play their last two games.

Unless the kids strike as well.

 

[oldskyblue58]

How have they Asset stripped? Please show where Sisu have taken any Money out of CCFC? Do you accept that the council tried to sell off the stadium to Wasps before we withheld any rent, and the subsequent litigation stemmed from underhand Council tactics? It's been a fight with punches from both sides. not bullying.

No they haven't asset stripped but it has all been about trying to get things in the best interests of their investors not necessarily the club. It very nearly worked but equally it very nearly caused complete disaster for CCFC. Football is high risk enough without that additional endangerment, the alienation of fans and income because of their tactics, that is why SISU have not been good owners. Have they taken monies out of CCFC yes - over the years around £1.5m. Have they put large loans in and claimed high interest yes (but not as much loans as they claim)

No ACL tried to buy Wasps before the rent strike, up to that point the only people involved in stadium sale talks was SISU. Highly likely that neither side knew what the other was doing outside the sale talks. The plan to go on rent strike had its origins in the formation of Otium in April 2011. The email from Gidney was March 2012 but talks were started before that. At that same time in 2012 ARVO registered their charge which would prove crucial in the administration that followed, that of course didnt happen by accident or unplanned.

The rent strike would have happened whether or not there had been a Gidney email, the details of which would not have been available to SISU until they commenced JR1.

What that Gidney email points to is that ACL could have owned Wasps which means if SISU could have done the stadium deal SISU could have owned Wasps how ironic would that have been.

It wasnt "underhand" for assets to move company then and not make anyone aware of it or to lose the golden share? The litigation in the main has been instigated by SISU or companies under their control, certainly in the years 2012 - 2014, with the objective of breaking the lease which it did and to distress ACL, which it nearly did.

Neither side in this comes out well, and the above is not a defence of either party but it frustrates me that things are claimed as fact when it is not.