Cost of relegation

[funny old game 1]

Bolton wanderers after 11 years in premier league have announced record losses,

Bolton losses

Turnover: £28.5m - down from £58.5m

Broadcast revenue: £19m - down from £42m.

Gate receipts: £3.8m - down from £5.7m

Advertising revenue: £1.4m - down from

Net debt is now recorded as £163.8m, of which £151.3m is owed to the owner.

& we thought things were bad down the road!!

Time to pull our figures out & pull away from the relegation battle!

[spudgfsh 0]

The thing you have to remember is that at no point during those ten years was there a desire to run the club as a profitable business. Indeed, when the brown stuff hit the fan Bolton really started to slide in the premier league.

What surprises me most is that they have not been able to cut the wage bill (which is the biggest cause of the £50M loss) that quickly. if they continue to make such losses then they will have a transfer embargo enforced (plus other potential sanctions by the football league).

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="spudgfsh"]The thing you have to remember is that at no point during those ten years was there a desire to run the club as a profitable business. Indeed, when the brown stuff hit the fan Bolton really started to slide in the premier league.

What surprises me most is that they have not been able to cut the wage bill (which is the biggest cause of the £50M loss) that quickly. if they continue to make such losses then they will have a transfer embargo enforced (plus other potential sanctions by the football league).[/quote]there is a bit of a differenceBolton continued to spend beyond their means over a decade or sothe paupers overspent for about one season and have seen that overspend being used to stiff themrather like Bolton running up a £500 overdraft at Barclays and numerous other banksand the paupers borrowing £500 from Wonga and not paying it back for a decade

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="spudgfsh"]The thing you have to remember is that at no point during those ten years was there a desire to run the club as a profitable business. Indeed, when the brown stuff hit the fan Bolton really started to slide in the premier league.

What surprises me most is that they have not been able to cut the wage bill (which is the biggest cause of the £50M loss) that quickly. if they continue to make such losses then they will have a transfer embargo enforced (plus other potential sanctions by the football league).[/quote]there is a bit of a differenceBolton continued to spend beyond their means over a decade or sothe paupers overspent for about one season and have seen that overspend being used to stiff themrather like Bolton running up a £500 overdraft at Barclays and numerous other banksand the paupers borrowing £500 from Wonga and not paying it back for a decade

[/quote]At the AGM McNally said all contracts have a clause for wage reduction should we be relegated. Hopefully our club have financial plans in place should the unthinkable happen.

[Gingerpele 0]

All because they couldn''t keep hold of Elmander...

[yoda 0]

I may be being overdramatic but something tells me that losing to palace will mean relegation for us,not after the game obviously but looking at the last 5 games we will come to a point soon when we will be screwed .

[Bill 1,788]

good pointit is not as if we played these five teams in the first half of the season, is it ?or in reality it means that the ''easier'' teams will be coming upeven if we lose we will will be one point less than what we achieved in the first half which suggests a total of 37 points - which does not mean relegation

[spudgfsh 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]At the AGM McNally said all contracts have a clause for wage reduction should we be relegated. Hopefully our club have financial plans in place should the unthinkable happen.[/quote]

We are certainly run in a more sustainable manner than a large number of clubs. Of course it is only sustainable based on the premier league money but we have the ability to adapt to the circumstances ahead (whatever they may be) because of the lack of debt.

[lappinitup 629]

I think Bolton are another good example of why we shouldn''t spend money on ground expansion. The Reebok was completed in 1997 with a capacity of 28,723 which served them well for eleven years until they were relegated. They are now averaging 15,656 which is comparable with the binners (30,000 and 16,542). 

[!M.u.s.t.a.r.d_M.a.t.t.e.r.s! 0]

Today''s Guardian: "Bolton''s huge losses come despite a £17.9m decrease in the club''s wage bill, which is attributed to the sale of players and the ''relegation clauses'' inserted in contracts.""Looking forward we have to recognise we are no longer a Premier League club in the Championship, but a Championship club with ambitions to play in the Premier league; a stark reality of the financial rules now imposed."

[SwindonCanary 457]

It was always stated that Bolton would be in trouble if they were ever relegated and it''s proving correct !

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="lappinitup"]I think Bolton are another good example of why we shouldn''t spend money on ground expansion. The Reebok was completed in 1997 with a capacity of 28,723 which served them well for eleven years until they were relegated. They are now averaging 15,656 which is comparable with the binners (30,000 and 16,542). 

[/quote]That couple of million annual cost could well increase further after a couple of seasons in the Championship when the happy clappies find another ''experience'' to patronise

[star_manic 0]

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="lappinitup"]I think Bolton are another good example of why we shouldn''t spend money on ground expansion. The Reebok was completed in 1997 with a capacity of 28,723 which served them well for eleven years until they were relegated. They are now averaging 15,656 which is comparable with the binners (30,000 and 16,542). 

[/quote]That couple of million annual cost could well increase further after a couple of seasons in the Championship when the happy clappies find another ''experience'' to patronise

[/quote]

I think of myself as an intelligent person but that statement has completely passed me by. Totally incomprehensible.

[Bill 1,788]

"<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td

class="txt4"><img

src="/forums/pinkun/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>City1st

wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td

class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td

width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4"><BLOCKQUOTE><table

width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img

src="/forums/pinkun/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>lappinitup

wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td

class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td

width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">I think Bolton are another

good example of why we shouldn''t spend money on ground expansion. The

Reebok was completed in 1997 with a capacity of 28,723 which served them

well for eleven years until they were relegated. They are now averaging

15,656 which is comparable with the binners (30,000 and 16,542). 

<br><br><br></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>That

couple of million annual cost could well increase further after a

couple of seasons in the Championship when the happy clappies find

another ''experience'' to

patronise<br><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

quite

[| wolfswinkel | 0]

At the AGM McNally said all contracts have a clause for wage reduction should we be relegated. Hopefully our club have financial plans in place should the unthinkable happen.

Why is McNally even thinking of mentioning relegation! Shows us his prospects of the season with hughton at the helm! Surely he can see what it''s doing to us? Or am I reading too much into it

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]I think Bolton are another good example of why we shouldn''t spend money on ground expansion. The Reebok was completed in 1997 with a capacity of 28,723 which served them well for eleven years until they were relegated. They are now averaging 15,656 which is comparable with the binners (30,000 and 16,542). 

[/quote]

Although where is our nearest big club...Ipswich? 40 miles, Bolton has about 10 large clubs within 30 miles, people didn''t stop going to FCR when we were in League 1?!

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user=" wolfswinkel "]At the AGM McNally said all contracts have a clause for wage reduction should we be relegated. Hopefully our club have financial plans in place should the unthinkable happen.

Why is McNally even thinking of mentioning relegation! Shows us his prospects of the season with hughton at the helm! Surely he can see what it''s doing to us? Or am I reading too much into it[/quote]So you don''t think it''s a good idea for clubs to have a plan that covers all eventualities?Seems to me that''s the type of thinking that got Bolton into trouble in the first place.

[Bill 1,788]

I think he was wondering why McNally thought it necessary to mention it, rather than us having such a planI would suggest it was in response to a question, as much as it was to clarify the matter to stop the usual bleats

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,462]

These figures are a indication of why staying in the premier league is the overriding aim for the bottom 12 clubs of the premier league year-on-year.

It may also account for the increasing tendency towards tactical pragmatism and the absence of cavalier attacking football from clubs outside the promoted 3 each season, for whom ride-the-wave of winning football and nothing-to-lose mental freedom.

The transition from this to established premier league mid table club is the holy grail for chief execs and rational club owners.

That this reality is essentially derived from sky money - and that its absence is so catastrophic - perhaps some of you will now revise opinions on the success of survival last year and the general view that we are not favourites to be relegated this year.

Contextually this is far more of an achievement that many give club, players and manager credit for.

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]These figures are a indication of why staying in the premier league is the overriding aim for the bottom 12 clubs of the premier league year-on-year.

It may also account for the increasing tendency towards tactical pragmatism and the absence of cavalier attacking football from clubs outside the promoted 3 each season, for whom ride-the-wave of winning football and nothing-to-lose mental freedom.

The transition from this to established premier league mid table club is the holy grail for chief execs and rational club owners.

That this reality is essentially derived from sky money - and that its absence is so catastrophic - perhaps some of you will now revise opinions on the success of survival last year and the general view that we are not favourites to be relegated this year.

Contextually this is far more of an achievement that many give club, players and manager credit for.[/quote]The absence of Sky money is only catastrophic if you have budgeted on the assumption that it will still be there. I hope (although there have been conflicting recent statements on this from the board) we have not made that error. The idea that Hughton''s achievement in keeping us up last season is somehow greater because of the possible consequences of failure is a logical non sequitur.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

If nothing else, this thread shows the impracticality of the argument that it''s better to have a go and lose than play defensively.

Having a go and losing guarantees us being next year''s Bolton. Little short of disastrous especially as few relegated clubs find their way back quickly.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]If nothing else, this thread shows the impracticality of the argument that it''s better to have a go and lose than play defensively.

Having a go and losing guarantees us being next year''s Bolton. Little short of disastrous especially as few relegated clubs find their way back quickly.[/quote]

Really? If we want to test that theory pretty quickly then we might ask Birmingham City. They were relegated three times from the Premiership during the past eight seasons having lost fewer games than teams which survived. Birmingham drew a lot of games but failed to get enough wins compared to those that survived. Other teams who have suffered that fate during the past ten seasons are Newcastle, Sheffield United, Watford, Charlton, and Leicester City.If a team is going to have a good chance of surviving in this division they generally have to ensure they have more wins than at least three other teams. At the moment we have four teams with less wins than us. Obviously, we need to keep it that way. The best way of achieving that is by going for it in the games we have a reasonable chance of success in.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,462]

I am afraid that is false. Denying others points is also crucial. A point a game is survival.

Gambling and losing against close rivals is disastrous, particularly if they are below you in the table. If they are below you and you are out if the bottom 3, then a draw is an outcome that favours you.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Which is what I said after Sunderland to some questioning from sceptical posters.

If we had gone for that and lost Sunderland would be three points nearer to us. The draw meant they stayed where they were.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,462]

For those of you that run businesses, imagine dropping 80% of your turnover in a day. However well you structure contracts and wages, this is beyond what you can allow for. Fixed costs simply cannot be reduced in correlation.

Fire sales are an option if your player software has immediate value, though thus immediately reduces your power and ability to return the missing 80%. Further tangential pain is caused by the disruption, the need to reform the team unit and the nature of the football played - and arguably required to be successful in the championship - all of which mitigates against smooth transition back.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]I am afraid that is false. Denying others points is also crucial. A point a game is survival.

Gambling and losing against close rivals is disastrous, particularly if they are below you in the table. If they are below you and you are out if the bottom 3, then a draw is an outcome that favours you.[/quote]

I''m afraid that is false. It may generally be the case and it may well be the case this season but, given there are numerous exceptions to that premise, it is, therefore not a fact. Is it? ( Look up the facts if you disagree with this statement ).

Also, you are not clear on what is false. For example, on the point I made that it is generally required for survival that there be three teams below us with less wins than we have, are you suggesting that premise is false. If so, I''d appreciate you proving it conclusively with facts. Particularly so because you were the one first claiming input to be false.

Finally, on another thread, I laid out the case that, in the past 38 games we have achieved a point a game. That raises the possibility that we may not achieve any better than a point a game over the next 15 games. We all hope we do. If we don''t however, we go into the final four games of the season with the toughest challenge of anyone in the division on no more than 34 points. Not a scenario to be relished with the teams at the top in a very tight race this season. So, to avoid that, we need to ensure we go for wins where we think we have the best chance of achieving them. Or are you suggesting that a point a game is acceptable over the next 15 games or, conversely, do you think we need more than a point a game? I realize you can avoid answering this question by simply re-stating that we need a point a game over the 19 remaining games but, in light of the finish that we face, it would be appreciated if you answered the specific question I asked.

[Surfer 1,547]

" I laid out the case that, in the past 38 games we have achieved a point a game. That raises the possibility that we may not achieve any better than a point a game over the next 15 games. We all hope we do. If we don''t however, we go into the final four games of the season with the toughest challenge of anyone in the division on no more than 34 points. Not a scenario to be relished with the teams at the top in a very tight race this season. So, to avoid that, we need to ensure we go for wins where we think we have the best chance of achieving them. Or are you suggesting that a point a game is acceptable over the next 15 games or, conversely, do you think we need more than a point a game? "

By that logic the next 19 games will yield 19 points not 15… an AVERAGE of a point a game is a point a game… otherwise it isn''t an average :-)

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--------City1st--------

I think he was wondering why McNally thought it necessary to mention it, rather than us having such a plan

--------------------------

Because we are a few points above the drop zone perchance? Given the way we have started this season relegation is a definite possibility.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Surfer"]" I laid out the case that, in the past 38 games we have achieved a point a game. That raises the possibility that we may not achieve any better than a point a game over the next 15 games. We all hope we do. If we don''t however, we go into the final four games of the season with the toughest challenge of anyone in the division on no more than 34 points. Not a scenario to be relished with the teams at the top in a very tight race this season. So, to avoid that, we need to ensure we go for wins where we think we have the best chance of achieving them. Or are you suggesting that a point a game is acceptable over the next 15 games or, conversely, do you think we need more than a point a game? "

By that logic the next 19 games will yield 19 points not 15… an AVERAGE of a point a game is a point a game… otherwise it isn''t an average :-)[/quote]

Of course it is Surfer but that wasn''t the point I was making.

[Houston Canary 0]

Why assume we lose when we go for it? If we lose one but win the other, which against similar teams seems reasonable, well get 3 points from those games, not 2.