| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... 09:08 - Aug 27 with 4066 views | ITFC_Forever |
What more could the EFL have done?
They can't give clubs in trouble money - that just encourages reckless spending, knowing the League will help them out.
The clubs have had plenty of time - these situations have been rumbling on for months. If anything, the League have given them too much time. The clubs should have had a deadline of 1st June.
Maybe the correct "fit and proper person" test should have been done on Dale at Bury - but he didn't create the mess, indeed, he saved them from liquidation by taking them on in the first place and the finances turned out to be far worse than he realised - it was the previous owner's fault as much as Dale's.
Bolton's real trouble started when Davies died - I'm not sure that's the EFL's fault either. |  |
| |  |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:15 - Aug 27 with 3535 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
We all knew back in May that Bolton and Bury would likely have no players for next season. What did the EFL think was going to happen? Out of contract players were going to flock to clubs who hadn't been paying their players?
It was entirely foreseeable that the season would start with these two either being unable to field a team, unable to get a safety certificate through having no staff willing to work unpaid or that the teams would be full of kids and make the integrity of the competition a farce.
The EFL, in my view, have given extension after extension in the hope that someone bails them out from the embarrassment of losing one, possible two, long established, famous former powerhouses.
The fit and proper persons test has been proven over many years to be a shambles. It is no longer the case that people buy clubs because they care about the club and the community. It is now the case you can buy a club for a £1, watch all its debts written off and walk away with goodness knows how much still through assets / land / whatever.
I'm just surprised it took this long for a big club to be in trouble.
Meanwhile, the EFL continues to allow things like Derby buying a £40m stadium for £80m and continues to let clubs get away with breaking FFP, which is only going to lead to the same situation for an even bigger club.
All because they can't stand up to the PL and don't want to lose their 'solidarity payments'. They should be telling the PL that parachute money is forcing other clubs to have to overspend to keep up and that they either distribute the wealth a little more equally down the pyramid by accepting the effect they are having on it, or they just refuse relegated clubs membership back into the EFL and let the PL deal with it. |  |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:17 - Aug 27 with 3531 views | PJH |
I agree that it is not the EFL's fault although they could and maybe should have handled it differently.
In the cases of those two clubs it is hard to know who to blame specifically although all along I think that there have been loads of half truths(at best) coming from those most involved.
What does annoy me is that there are two clubs in the state that they are and probably some more not far from that state when the very top end of English football has more money than it seems to know what to do with.
I am sure that most of those awash with money are not too bothered about what is happening lower down the scale but for me that is one of the many reasons that football is dying(for me).
I am sure that young people that follow the game now must laugh at people like me who say that almost everything about football used to be so much better but in my opinion, it really was. |  | | |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:30 - Aug 27 with 3463 views | Guthrum |
It's not really the EFL, they only run one of the competitions and are held over a barrel by the Prem on funding.
Of more importance is to ask: What has the FA been doing to enforce a well-run and regulated sport in this country? Unfortunately, they, too are in hock to the Prem (and its parent, Sky) on the money front. |  |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:37 - Aug 27 with 3426 views | itfc48 |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:15 - Aug 27 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
We all knew back in May that Bolton and Bury would likely have no players for next season. What did the EFL think was going to happen? Out of contract players were going to flock to clubs who hadn't been paying their players?
It was entirely foreseeable that the season would start with these two either being unable to field a team, unable to get a safety certificate through having no staff willing to work unpaid or that the teams would be full of kids and make the integrity of the competition a farce.
The EFL, in my view, have given extension after extension in the hope that someone bails them out from the embarrassment of losing one, possible two, long established, famous former powerhouses.
The fit and proper persons test has been proven over many years to be a shambles. It is no longer the case that people buy clubs because they care about the club and the community. It is now the case you can buy a club for a £1, watch all its debts written off and walk away with goodness knows how much still through assets / land / whatever.
I'm just surprised it took this long for a big club to be in trouble.
Meanwhile, the EFL continues to allow things like Derby buying a £40m stadium for £80m and continues to let clubs get away with breaking FFP, which is only going to lead to the same situation for an even bigger club.
All because they can't stand up to the PL and don't want to lose their 'solidarity payments'. They should be telling the PL that parachute money is forcing other clubs to have to overspend to keep up and that they either distribute the wealth a little more equally down the pyramid by accepting the effect they are having on it, or they just refuse relegated clubs membership back into the EFL and let the PL deal with it. |
They need to totally rethink FFP as it's clearly not working. Personally I think owners should be able to spend what they like out of their personal wealth as long as that money is a gift to the club and not a loan that requires repaying further down the line. | | | |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:55 - Aug 27 with 3365 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:30 - Aug 27 by Guthrum |
It's not really the EFL, they only run one of the competitions and are held over a barrel by the Prem on funding.
Of more importance is to ask: What has the FA been doing to enforce a well-run and regulated sport in this country? Unfortunately, they, too are in hock to the Prem (and its parent, Sky) on the money front. |
Exactly this. The whole relationship between the PL, EFL and FA is too far gone now.
The PL is effectively an horrible millionaire husband to the FA, a gold digging wife, whilst the EFL is the FA's teenage child who the PL cannot stand, but throws a bit of money at just to keep quiet.
The PL wants it's brand to be the biggest in the world, amidst competition from La Liga and now to an extent China, so it benefits them to allow billionaires to come in, buy their clubs, pump the money in with little thought about what it does further down the leagues or even to their own clubs short term.
The FA have power to do something but they accept what they get dished out and lap up the cream off the PL money that comes along and all the plaudits and commercial opportunities that come with having the best league in the world, so they do little to stop it and the EFL is desperately unhappy but knows that it is better to live with the PL and get a nice £700,000 pocket money each year for each club than to leave home and be happy.
The PL is just now able to do whatever it wants. Let's get this straight. The Bolton and Bury situations are largely down to the clubs involved, not the Premier League. But it's what the PL has caused that has allowed these clubs lower down the league to have to catch up with money they don't have, leaving debts that allow vultures to swoop in when the FA should be shooing them away before there's just a carcass left. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:59 - Aug 27 with 3343 views | Guthrum |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:37 - Aug 27 by itfc48 |
They need to totally rethink FFP as it's clearly not working. Personally I think owners should be able to spend what they like out of their personal wealth as long as that money is a gift to the club and not a loan that requires repaying further down the line. |
It's too late for that, the damage has already been done (indeed, was before FFP was even introduced). Virtually every club is now loaded down with unrepayable debt, with ongoing expenses exceeding income.
Indeed, if calculated as an aggregate whole over Prem and League, I doubt football in England breaks even, so simple redistribution of money would not be sufficient, either.
As governments have found, it is immensely difficult to reverse inflation, particularly in wages. Unless there is a way of vastly increasing income the problem is intractable. I can't think of one, ticket prices already being as high as supporters can stand, TV companies are not going to want to pay more for broadcast rights. A drastic wage cap might be the only way, but that would require legislation (isn't going to happen), lead to an exodus of talent and provoke anger among those fans who don't care about the financial health of the game.
Otherwise we're stuck with English football as a mechanism of sucking in vast amounts of wealth and pouring it into the pockets of players* and their agents (and thence on to estate agents, hairdressers and luxury car manufacturers).
* The players themselves are not to blame, as such, passively benefitting from a system which already works to their advantage. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:01 - Aug 27 with 3331 views | Guthrum |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:55 - Aug 27 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
Exactly this. The whole relationship between the PL, EFL and FA is too far gone now.
The PL is effectively an horrible millionaire husband to the FA, a gold digging wife, whilst the EFL is the FA's teenage child who the PL cannot stand, but throws a bit of money at just to keep quiet.
The PL wants it's brand to be the biggest in the world, amidst competition from La Liga and now to an extent China, so it benefits them to allow billionaires to come in, buy their clubs, pump the money in with little thought about what it does further down the leagues or even to their own clubs short term.
The FA have power to do something but they accept what they get dished out and lap up the cream off the PL money that comes along and all the plaudits and commercial opportunities that come with having the best league in the world, so they do little to stop it and the EFL is desperately unhappy but knows that it is better to live with the PL and get a nice £700,000 pocket money each year for each club than to leave home and be happy.
The PL is just now able to do whatever it wants. Let's get this straight. The Bolton and Bury situations are largely down to the clubs involved, not the Premier League. But it's what the PL has caused that has allowed these clubs lower down the league to have to catch up with money they don't have, leaving debts that allow vultures to swoop in when the FA should be shooing them away before there's just a carcass left. |
Good analogy. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:08 - Aug 27 with 3288 views | Vaughan8 |
I think the EFL have handed extension after extension, as someone said to try and save them embarrassment of having 2 team (even in the same league) having to get thrown out.
Clearly they can't control everything at the club but they have to hold some responsibility. ALso, surely there needs to be a "rule" in this situation that a reasonable offer has to be accepted. This Dale is just going to reject anything under his valuation.
What I don't understand is the Bury owner has (apparently) negotiated with presumably HMRC to pay creditors 20p in the £1. Lets say he owed £10m, that debt is now £2m.
He apparently wants £5m so he can have a £3m profit. This was all stated by a reliable source on talksport (so make of that what you wish).
Firstly, why would anyone pay £5m and therefore is an unrealistic amount? Secondly, if someone offered him £2m, why wouldn't he take it, or even £1m? Surely if he lets it go under he's losing it all, or am I missing something? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:08 - Aug 27 with 3286 views | Metal_Hacker |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:59 - Aug 27 by Guthrum |
It's too late for that, the damage has already been done (indeed, was before FFP was even introduced). Virtually every club is now loaded down with unrepayable debt, with ongoing expenses exceeding income.
Indeed, if calculated as an aggregate whole over Prem and League, I doubt football in England breaks even, so simple redistribution of money would not be sufficient, either.
As governments have found, it is immensely difficult to reverse inflation, particularly in wages. Unless there is a way of vastly increasing income the problem is intractable. I can't think of one, ticket prices already being as high as supporters can stand, TV companies are not going to want to pay more for broadcast rights. A drastic wage cap might be the only way, but that would require legislation (isn't going to happen), lead to an exodus of talent and provoke anger among those fans who don't care about the financial health of the game.
Otherwise we're stuck with English football as a mechanism of sucking in vast amounts of wealth and pouring it into the pockets of players* and their agents (and thence on to estate agents, hairdressers and luxury car manufacturers).
* The players themselves are not to blame, as such, passively benefitting from a system which already works to their advantage. |
Absolutely ......it's now beyond repair .
The only way this can repair itself as a whole is to simply implode massively and rebuild
Never gonna happen is it !! |  |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:13 - Aug 27 with 3246 views | Guthrum |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:08 - Aug 27 by Vaughan8 |
I think the EFL have handed extension after extension, as someone said to try and save them embarrassment of having 2 team (even in the same league) having to get thrown out.
Clearly they can't control everything at the club but they have to hold some responsibility. ALso, surely there needs to be a "rule" in this situation that a reasonable offer has to be accepted. This Dale is just going to reject anything under his valuation.
What I don't understand is the Bury owner has (apparently) negotiated with presumably HMRC to pay creditors 20p in the £1. Lets say he owed £10m, that debt is now £2m.
He apparently wants £5m so he can have a £3m profit. This was all stated by a reliable source on talksport (so make of that what you wish).
Firstly, why would anyone pay £5m and therefore is an unrealistic amount? Secondly, if someone offered him £2m, why wouldn't he take it, or even £1m? Surely if he lets it go under he's losing it all, or am I missing something? |
The EFL has no authority over club ownership - other than whether or not they allow them into their competitions.
It's entirely a private matter, with not even the FA having any direct oversight. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:16 - Aug 27 with 3219 views | GeoffSentence |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 09:17 - Aug 27 by PJH |
I agree that it is not the EFL's fault although they could and maybe should have handled it differently.
In the cases of those two clubs it is hard to know who to blame specifically although all along I think that there have been loads of half truths(at best) coming from those most involved.
What does annoy me is that there are two clubs in the state that they are and probably some more not far from that state when the very top end of English football has more money than it seems to know what to do with.
I am sure that most of those awash with money are not too bothered about what is happening lower down the scale but for me that is one of the many reasons that football is dying(for me).
I am sure that young people that follow the game now must laugh at people like me who say that almost everything about football used to be so much better but in my opinion, it really was. |
Given that Bolton were one of those awash with money not so very long ago, you would think that some of the smaller premier league clubs ought to sit up and take notice. |  |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:21 - Aug 27 with 3193 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Quite a bit don't you think? Pots and kettles come to mind too.
The situation at both clubs and Notts County was well known last year. To allow two clubs in one division to go into a 46 game season on a wing and a prayer is bizarre. The very least they could have done is promote the team that came 5th and relegated Bury immediately at the end of last season. Both teams should have been removed from the league before the season started.
Looking further forward I disagree that there shouldn't be an emergency fund to keep teams alive. There should also be a cap on player earnings and a PFA subsidy to support the league pyramid. All these things are possible and indeed desirable. Just because football governance in this country makes the wild west seem tame doesn't mean that the cess pit shouldn't be cleaned up - starting from the top. However, IF anybody anywhere thinks football in its current form is worth saving it might be wise to remember that our owner was branded, probably quite rightly, unfit to own a football club based of his industrial scale ticket touting. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:25 - Aug 27 with 3172 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:16 - Aug 27 by GeoffSentence |
Given that Bolton were one of those awash with money not so very long ago, you would think that some of the smaller premier league clubs ought to sit up and take notice. |
Bolton were not awash with money at the time - just like Town they were awash with debt and poured all the money into players' pockets. Maybe J J Okacha and his mates will hand a few million back | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:29 - Aug 27 with 3155 views | Guthrum |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:08 - Aug 27 by Metal_Hacker |
Absolutely ......it's now beyond repair .
The only way this can repair itself as a whole is to simply implode massively and rebuild
Never gonna happen is it !! |
Rather than a single, massive implosion, there will be steady cull of teams, similar to that which happened in the early days when professionalism was first coming in. Others will rise up to replace them.
The real issue will occur if any oncoming recession dries up the flow of money into the game from wealthy owners (particularly Middle/Far Eastern). That could precipitate a crisis. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:30 - Aug 27 with 3156 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:21 - Aug 27 by ElephantintheRoom |
Quite a bit don't you think? Pots and kettles come to mind too.
The situation at both clubs and Notts County was well known last year. To allow two clubs in one division to go into a 46 game season on a wing and a prayer is bizarre. The very least they could have done is promote the team that came 5th and relegated Bury immediately at the end of last season. Both teams should have been removed from the league before the season started.
Looking further forward I disagree that there shouldn't be an emergency fund to keep teams alive. There should also be a cap on player earnings and a PFA subsidy to support the league pyramid. All these things are possible and indeed desirable. Just because football governance in this country makes the wild west seem tame doesn't mean that the cess pit shouldn't be cleaned up - starting from the top. However, IF anybody anywhere thinks football in its current form is worth saving it might be wise to remember that our owner was branded, probably quite rightly, unfit to own a football club based of his industrial scale ticket touting. |
The first steps to get this nonsense in order would be to introduce a wage cap that was divisionally based within the EFL divisions. Something like (figures to be adjusted based on actual revenue across the divisions) £15,000 a week in the Championship, £5,000 in League One and £2,000 in League Two, including bonuses, as well as having proper FFP.
Give all clubs notice that all new contracts must be agreed based on the division the player was in at the time (eg - it's okay if you go down to carry on paying a now League One player £15,000 a week, but this is where FFP will dictate you have to try and get them off the books.
This would at least be a start. It would allow the EFL to look at what clubs earned naturally through gate receipts, solidarity payments, sponsorship and set a realistic level. It doesn't matter how low they set it hypothetically as all Championship clubs would be in the same boat and three would still hit the financial jackpot by going up. If it creates a closed shop so be it. Other clubs would be able to catch up by selling players at a profit to Premier League clubs anyway and put themselves into a position to be frontrunners.
Also cut squad sizes in the Championship to 25 players aged 21 and over, 23 in League One and 21 in League Two. This would also stop clubs stockpiling and building up even bigger wage bills. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:33 - Aug 27 with 3129 views | GeoffSentence |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:25 - Aug 27 by ElephantintheRoom |
Bolton were not awash with money at the time - just like Town they were awash with debt and poured all the money into players' pockets. Maybe J J Okacha and his mates will hand a few million back |
I was deliberately using the terminology of the previous poster. But I think it is valid to say that they were awash with money. They had eleven consecutive seasons in the premier league with all the income that came with that. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:37 - Aug 27 with 3123 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:30 - Aug 27 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
The first steps to get this nonsense in order would be to introduce a wage cap that was divisionally based within the EFL divisions. Something like (figures to be adjusted based on actual revenue across the divisions) £15,000 a week in the Championship, £5,000 in League One and £2,000 in League Two, including bonuses, as well as having proper FFP.
Give all clubs notice that all new contracts must be agreed based on the division the player was in at the time (eg - it's okay if you go down to carry on paying a now League One player £15,000 a week, but this is where FFP will dictate you have to try and get them off the books.
This would at least be a start. It would allow the EFL to look at what clubs earned naturally through gate receipts, solidarity payments, sponsorship and set a realistic level. It doesn't matter how low they set it hypothetically as all Championship clubs would be in the same boat and three would still hit the financial jackpot by going up. If it creates a closed shop so be it. Other clubs would be able to catch up by selling players at a profit to Premier League clubs anyway and put themselves into a position to be frontrunners.
Also cut squad sizes in the Championship to 25 players aged 21 and over, 23 in League One and 21 in League Two. This would also stop clubs stockpiling and building up even bigger wage bills. |
Salary caps as a set figure are completely unworkable.
A large club in a division, will be able to afford the set salary far easier than a smaller one (eg; Sunderland / ITFC in L1 vs. Accrington Stanley / Burton). | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:39 - Aug 27 with 3111 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:25 - Aug 27 by ElephantintheRoom |
Bolton were not awash with money at the time - just like Town they were awash with debt and poured all the money into players' pockets. Maybe J J Okacha and his mates will hand a few million back |
You really are odd.
Why would JJ Okocha hand money back? He was employed as a footballer by a football club who could afford to pay his wages and years later they are now going out of business as a result of numerous failings, none of which involve Okocha.
Are you going to give your wages back to Chantry Fried Chicken if they struggle? | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:39 - Aug 27 with 3106 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:25 - Aug 27 by ElephantintheRoom |
Bolton were not awash with money at the time - just like Town they were awash with debt and poured all the money into players' pockets. Maybe J J Okacha and his mates will hand a few million back |
Sunderland’s spell in the PL resulted in £250m of debt. The PL isn’t a money tree for most, more of a money pit |  | | |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:50 - Aug 27 with 3044 views | chicoazul |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:39 - Aug 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Sunderland’s spell in the PL resulted in £250m of debt. The PL isn’t a money tree for most, more of a money pit |
Which is pretty much what he said and I imagine what he means. You can't be said to be "awash with money" if you spend it all *and then borrow more* be it from HMRC, a bank, or whatever. |  |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:57 - Aug 27 with 3012 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:37 - Aug 27 by ITFC_Forever |
Salary caps as a set figure are completely unworkable.
A large club in a division, will be able to afford the set salary far easier than a smaller one (eg; Sunderland / ITFC in L1 vs. Accrington Stanley / Burton). |
That's the entire point.
Clubs living within their means.
The three richest clubs don't go up every year and the three smallest clubs don't go down. But it would encourage teams to do what Brentford have done. Grown steadily, sold players, reinvested and built from that.
Look at Sheffield United. No bigger than half the Championship clubs. Sold some players, made a load of money, cleverly reinvested. That's how football clubs should be run. It's sustainable.
What's the alternative? Allow millionaires to come in, allow them to spend more than they can afford, leave the club with massive debts?
FFP in League One is effectively a salary cap, just on the overall total and not individual wages. Sunderland already have ten times more than Accrington Stanley. Leicester won the Premier League only a few years back. The gap between them and the likes of Manchester City is a million times harder to bridge than the smallest and biggest club in any of the other divisions as you work your way down.
[Post edited 27 Aug 2019 11:21]
| |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 11:10 - Aug 27 with 2967 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 10:57 - Aug 27 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
That's the entire point.
Clubs living within their means.
The three richest clubs don't go up every year and the three smallest clubs don't go down. But it would encourage teams to do what Brentford have done. Grown steadily, sold players, reinvested and built from that.
Look at Sheffield United. No bigger than half the Championship clubs. Sold some players, made a load of money, cleverly reinvested. That's how football clubs should be run. It's sustainable.
What's the alternative? Allow millionaires to come in, allow them to spend more than they can afford, leave the club with massive debts?
FFP in League One is effectively a salary cap, just on the overall total and not individual wages. Sunderland already have ten times more than Accrington Stanley. Leicester won the Premier League only a few years back. The gap between them and the likes of Manchester City is a million times harder to bridge than the smallest and biggest club in any of the other divisions as you work your way down.
[Post edited 27 Aug 2019 11:21]
|
But the salary cap would be easy to achieve for Sunderland, and not for an Accrington who potentially would be spending more money they don't have to keep up.
And the Sunderland in that situation can afford to have a much larger squad. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 11:17 - Aug 27 with 2940 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 11:10 - Aug 27 by ITFC_Forever |
But the salary cap would be easy to achieve for Sunderland, and not for an Accrington who potentially would be spending more money they don't have to keep up.
And the Sunderland in that situation can afford to have a much larger squad. |
I don't think you understand how it currently works.
Sunderland have something like a £15m wage bill this year and Accrington have something like £3m. That is what they can spend based on the money they have coming in.
It just means that Sunderland can have about 20 players total (which they obviously won't) at £15k a week, or more likely a mix of players on £15k, £10k, £5k etc. But they won't be able to go out and continually add to the squad with top players if they get injuries or suspensions. They won't be able to keep spending on players they then won't use. A bit like how it should work now but with a bit more control to it.
Accrington SHOULDN'T be spending money they don't have to keep up. So they wouldn't pay a player £15,000 a week because it would be 25% of their entire wage budget.
If Leicester can win the Premier League, Accrington can get promoted. They were right in the mix for the playoffs for the first 2/3 of last season. If they can't make the playoffs, then selling players, reinvesting and growing slowly may allow them to go up next season, or the one after.
That is how it SHOULD work. Not allowing Accrington to spend money they don't have only to be where Bury and Bolton are in 3 years. | |
| |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 11:52 - Aug 27 with 2865 views | ElderGrizzly |
Looks like Bassini has popped up again
| | | |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 11:59 - Aug 27 with 2843 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Bolton, Bury and the EFL.... on 11:52 - Aug 27 by ElderGrizzly |
Looks like Bassini has popped up again
|
He's been one of notloB's biggest causes of this mess.
He's got no more proof of funds of £39m than my 9 year old daughter. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
