Right...how does it work?

Serious question this,
Wanky Wanderers reported an annual loss of £50.7m, taking their overall debt upto a whopping £163.8m....yet are able to plod along without a care in the world, knowing full well they'll probably never be able to pay this debt off.
Yet my little old Bury club had debts of less than 100k and nearly went bust   .

I know we had the Glazers financially crippling the Rags, but realistically they're a much different proposition than Bolton.

So, seriously, how are Bolton not so far up shit creek without a paddle it's untrue???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25559504

Because most of the debt will be owed to the owner. If he ever decided to call in the debt, they'd go bust immediately.

Bury's debt is probably owed to suppliers who could petition for winding up etc. if they aren't getting paid.

Yeah, i guess that sounds about right Dawg.

Here's hoping he calls it in then   .

Reading further down about the FF rules, they could be in deep shit there.....hope the FL relegates them to the Conference North    

No complaints from me, might not have all the nobs parking outside my house on match days rather than pay the £3 to park. Even worse when it's bloody pop concerts.

Trouble is Warbies will have to stop making bread before they run out of money.

Don't think Warbies have anything to do with Bolton anymore blisterin.

Bolton are 100% owned by Burden Leisure of which Eddie Davies ownes 94.5%.

According to Wiki:
The debt owed to Eddie Davies (£125m at the time) was renegotiated from short-term to long-term debt during the 2011–12 season, meaning the club would have 10 years from demand of repayment to satisfy the debt and any interest accumulated.

Obviously what you said originally Dawg is true then.

This is a good example of how money is on the brink of destroying the sport at a fundamental level. £100k is nothing to a PL club; they're all picking up 500 times that much just in TV rights. Most Championship clubs could probably find that much in their coffers too. But for that relative pittance to break a lower league club is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

How the FA are not able to see this is totally beyond me.

And it would be so easy to fix, too. How about the FA takes a portion of the TV money and uses it for good? They could reduce the amount given to PL clubs to £49m and then use the £20m they'd skimmed off to donate to lower league clubs. Giving £100k to each of the 48 clubs in League 1 and 2 would use up less than £5m of that money and the rest could be used to fund non-league and grass roots. And every single one of them could afford to carry on.

And all for £1m per PL team, a sum of money that none of them would ever miss.

wholeheartedly agree leo  pretty much what I have been saying for years now.

The problem is that the more money the lower league clubs have, the more they waste.

How much do you guys think players in League 1 (such as Oldham) earn?

Topdawg wrote:The problem is that the more money the lower league clubs have, the more they waste.

How much do you guys think players in League 1 (such as Oldham) earn?

Probably no more than any other clubs Dawg.

it wouldn't all go on wages i'm sure of that but it would help clubs maybe keep that extra couple of players with potential instead of letting them go.

Topdawg wrote:The problem is that the more money the lower league clubs have, the more they waste.

How much do you guys think players in League 1 (such as Oldham) earn?

In theory, that should be irrelevant. If a League 1 club could go under with losses of less than £100k per annum then this payment would save them. Of course, there's nothing to stop them wasting the money, but I'd hope that the majority would at least use the money wisely.

Most of them would use the money to push the boat out a bit more trying for promotion. I think the captain of Oldham earns about £100K a year.