Financial results Announced

Overall the Burnden Leisure group recorded a loss for last year of £13.2 million pounds compared with a loss of £8.1 million pounds in the previous year.

The Group appear to be pleased with this considering the current financial climate but quite clearly it can't go on for much longer. From what I've seen at the Reebok this year gate takings are going to be down - and isn't TV income not as great.

Looks like we need some investment or.......

....we'll have to sell Gavin McCann to balance the books.

We can sell the empty seats - at least 6,000 of them are not being used.

Why can I see these things but no-one else can?

I have not had chance to go through the figures but, with the majority of income coming from TV and Megson having allegedly significantly reduced the wage bill, perhaps the level of reduction has been greatly exaggerated to make megson look better, one wonders how the loss has risen so much even in the current economic climate. If you have the figures in front of you breeze what are our interest payments this year as supposed to last?
Do you have a link to them online.

I printed them out yesterday Tim but I haven't had a proper chance to look through them. At first glance it appears that the loans have been shifted around (although I would need to check the 2007 books) - it seems slightly harder to pinpoint the charges (floating or otherwise) relating to ED's soft loans.

As for the wage bill it is effectively the same (if you include the additional pension payouts and inflation) although it does include 5 additional members of the playing staff so I guess it's a positive although nowhere near the expected levels of reduction.

The statements from Gartside and Duckworth are the most salient pieces of information (as they often are with finaancial reports)...

Where did you print them out from?
Sounds like the wage reduction has been grossly overstated. I would be very interested to see where are loans are to, i.e. onshore or offshore. Do you know who the mortgage on the ground is with?

I've heard that the loans are all offshore...

...apparently, our finances are all at sea.



I blame Megson's sporting strategic policy.

I got them from Companies House, Tim. If you let me have your email address I'll happily send you the PDF.

The Group is owned by Fildraw Private Trust which is IOM based (not surprisingly given that Eddie Davies and his company have been located there for decades. There is no real insight into the loan structure although it seems that only 2/3 of the debt is secured, the bulk of which was probably in place just before ED arrived. I'm still going through it...it's fascinating, really it is.

What would be really interesting is to get into the corporate structure i.e. what relation does Bolton's holding company have to Davies' other UK operations. We will of course have to work out the level of interest payments on the unsecured loans. It may be we can reduce the debt payments on the secured debt, if it is on a fixed interest basis, once liquidity starts to flow in the market again. That could produce significant savings on our existing debt costs.

The payments are described to some degree and several millions are due to be paid within the next few years. However, financial minutiae aside, the next few years for the group are clear...Premier League survival at all costs. That's the blaringly obvious message...

I have discovered two sparkling pieces of information from this conflab between you two.

The first is that Tim must be BWFC's finance co-ordination logistical executive: "We will of course have to work out the level of interest.....It may be we can reduce the debt payments on the secured debt.....on our existing debt costs."
Best of luck with that, Tim... you sound nearer to becoming Peter Kenyon every day.

Whilst the second is the word blaringly.

All new to me. Cheers dudes.

Do you think I hesitated between blindingly and glaringly?

I quite like blaringly though...

TOO LOUD!!!!!

Sell Megson!!!!!!!

into slavery

tim_rigby wrote:into slavery

Racist.

Why a slave is not necessarily of one race, indeed under the Romans Britons and Celts would have been slaves. You are not terribly bright are you?

tim_rigby wrote:Why a slave is not necessarily of one race, indeed under the Romans Britons and Celts would have been slaves. Your not terribly bright are you?

It was merely a tongue-in-cheek remark, in the spirit of the PC brigade nonsense that often gets spouted... calm down.


I may not be terribly bright, but at least I can spell 'you're'.

what a come back mangler......lol

Why the feck would anyone!!.... anywhere!! want a slave!! with ginger hair.........

I love the fact that Tim went back and edited the post!!

Have another go, Tim. You're grammar's shite.

He's a Cunning Celt.

wakeywhite wrote:I love the fact that Tim went back and edited the post!!

Have another go, Tim. You're grammar's shite.

She's actually a very lovely old lady.

Now that was funny Mark.