Bolton Wanderers Fans Forum

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Bolton Wanderers Supporters' Trust will not back down over Macron ACV order to 'safeguard the club’s

Bolton Wanderers Supporters' Trust will not back down over Macron ACV order to 'safeguard the club’s

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
SUPPORTERS’ Trust leaders say they do not want to go ‘daggers drawn’ against Bolton Wanderers — but will not back down in a dispute over legal protection for the Macron Stadium.
Whites owner Ken Anderson last week urged the trust to ‘save the club a great deal of cash and time’ by not fighting attempts to have the stadium and surrounding land declassified as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).
While the ACV is in place, the stadium itself, the Whites Hotel, offices and car parking land around the ground cannot be sold without public notification.

A private council hearing to decide whether or not the ACV will be lifted is scheduled for October 2.
Bolton Wanderers Supporters’ Trust chairman, Daniel Izza, said: “We are certainly not looking to stop the club from buying assets.
“The ACV is there as protection for the club, it is nothing personal against the current owners. The ACV is now common among football clubs, so we aren’t suggesting anything unusual.
“It means that should the supporters have the opportunity to buy an asset in a commercial scenario, they have the first option. It does not prevent a sale, but it ensures that there is transparency in any transaction. We are not looking to go daggers drawn against the club and the ACV is not something that the club should be afraid of, because it is part of the community as well.”
Mr Anderson claimed that the ACV is ‘fundamentally restrictive to the progress we are trying to make at the club’, saying it could hamper his refinancing plans.

However the supporters’ trust says the ACV listing is there to protect the club’s long-term future.
Ian Bridge, trust founder and former chairman, added: “If the owner wanted to sell an asset and could put forward that it was of benefit to the club’s long-term sustainability then we would not stand in the way. We are disappointed that this has become a contentious issue when all we are trying to do is safeguard the club’s future.

“It is not a personal vendetta against the current owners, it would be there no matter who owned the club. To ask the trust to back off without giving any substance as to why goes against the purpose of the ACV.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Leeds_Trotter

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
They've always a problem this lot, just wanting to make things difficult for Ken. Anyone would think they are salty about their ridiculous takeover attempt.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Question - why is Ian Bridge talking on behalf of the ST when he is no longer an elected Board member?
 
Doesn't this just underlines the fact that the ST is simply led by a very small group of likeminded people who don't consult their membership (or have ever been voted in) and take the decisions they want?
 
(And who all happen to be anti-Anderson!) 

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
The ST still think they can raise the money to buy the club? They really are clueless and as a member i don't want them to buy the club anyway

Leeds_Trotter

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Norpig wrote:The ST still think they can raise the money to buy the club? They really are clueless and as a member i don't want them to buy the club anyway
I'd ask for your fee back NP.

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?

No it doesn't.

The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six months to raise money to but the asset.

Even then the club owner can sell to who he wants - even if it is for less money.

So all along I've argued that if the ST can't raise millions to buy the assets then what really is the point of them getting an ACV other than as a means of simply irritating the owner, delaying him by 6 months and devaluing the value of the asset whilst people have to wait to go through the whole process every time they want to buy or sell it.

Think Hotel rather than the ground and you will soon see why it is so absurd and damaging to the clubs future.



Last edited by Sluffy on Tue Sep 19 2017, 11:09; edited 1 time in total

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six moths to raise money to but the asset.


If they switch their outside light on after dark tonight they should be able to get the six moths they need.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Natasha Whittam wrote:
Sluffy wrote:The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six moths to raise money to but the asset.


If they switch their outside light on after dark tonight they should be able to get the six moths they need.

Very Happy


(I'll change it!).

Kane57

avatar
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
As usual, people putting their dislike of Izza etc over what's best for the club.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Kane57 wrote:As usual, people putting their dislike of Izza etc over what's best for the club.

What is best for the club?

I would think it's survival is the number one priority - agreed?

IF we reach a position that the club needs cash flow, there is nobody willing or able to buy/invest in the club then surely we only have two options - 1) mortgage/sell assets - 2) Enter Administration (and receive a points deduction) so that the Administrator can sell assets.  Agreed?

Then what is best for the club 1) mortgage/sale of assets by the club owner or 2) sale of assets and points deduction from the Administrator?

Maybe your question should be phrased the other way around - namely -

"As usual, people putting their dislike of Anderson etc over what's best for the club".

Just a thought.



(Also where on the thread are there anti-Izza comments?).

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
I don't even know Izza but the ST are just being awkward, they will never be able to raise the money to buy the club and as i said before i don't want them running it anyway. 
When Portsmouth came to speak at the initial ST meeting all their people said the limit for an ST running a club would be league 1 and wouldn't be sustainable in the Championship.

If someone has the money to invest and buy the club and passes all the tests set by the EFL then they are not going to wait 6 months for the ACV to not be an issue are they?

Kane57

avatar
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Sluffy wrote:
Kane57 wrote:As usual, people putting their dislike of Izza etc over what's best for the club.

What is best for the club?

I would think it's survival is the number one priority - agreed?

IF we reach a position that the club needs cash flow, there is nobody willing or able to buy/invest in the club then surely we only have two options - 1) mortgage/sell assets - 2) Enter Administration (and receive a points deduction) so that the Administrator can sell assets.  Agreed?

Then what is best for the club 1) mortgage/sale of assets by the club owner or 2) sale of assets and points deduction from the Administrator?

Maybe your question should be phrased the other way around - namely -

"As usual, people putting their dislike of Anderson etc over what's best for the club".

Just a thought.



(Also where on the thread are there anti-Izza comments?).

You're well aware of what I meant - if I may say so, I get the same vibe from you.

Survival is always number one, but protecting assets is a close close second. It's an impossible position. Whichever way it goes is a volatile choice

Bollotom2014

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
It's a willy waving exercise. The ST think they have a bigger willy so take on the owners, doesn't matter who the owners are, the ST will continue their antics because they have the arrogance to assume that all fans want them to act as they are. They'd be better off nipping down to Missus Jones knitting club and handing out the tea and biscuits.
I might change my mind if Ken fecks up but then I would hope the long established BWFSA would lead any charge. And I'm with Sluffy. Why is yon Bridge bloke yapping? He's been removed from office and has no right for any comment beyond his own personal opinion.
If the ACV stays in place, it just ties the club's hands for a while, could delay or even stop investment so is more damaging in its existence than if it was just a tin-pot set up...oh hang on.

Kane57

avatar
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Dick waving is absolutely right. Both sides equally guilty.

Guest


Guest
Supporters trust acting on behalf of its member base......i think not

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
I give up with the ST and will definitely not be contributing to them again

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Kane57 wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
Kane57 wrote:As usual, people putting their dislike of Izza etc over what's best for the club.

What is best for the club?

I would think it's survival is the number one priority - agreed?

IF we reach a position that the club needs cash flow, there is nobody willing or able to buy/invest in the club then surely we only have two options - 1) mortgage/sell assets - 2) Enter Administration (and receive a points deduction) so that the Administrator can sell assets.  Agreed?

Then what is best for the club 1) mortgage/sale of assets by the club owner or 2) sale of assets and points deduction from the Administrator?

Maybe your question should be phrased the other way around - namely -

"As usual, people putting their dislike of Anderson etc over what's best for the club".

Just a thought.



(Also where on the thread are there anti-Izza comments?).

You're well aware of what I meant - if I may say so, I get the same vibe from you.

Survival is always number one, but protecting assets is a close close second. It's an impossible position. Whichever way it goes is a volatile choice

I'm not aware of what you mean unless you are saying I/others whom may have posted above - are anti-ST?

As for the vibe you get from me, that's down to you.

I've been accused by many (including according to you the ST Board themselves) of allsorts but the simple truth is that their ONLY function is to be the backstop if all goes wrong for the club and it is left without money or assets.

Everything else is a personal choice that the ST Board individuals have taken upon themselves to do without any legal powers, nor indeed with any elections (and thus no mandate) from their own members.

Everything they have done is based on the personal decisions of about what, seven or eight people at the most I would guess - and in all probability fewer than that.

I'm certainly not alone in questioning their actions (and motives!), indeed it would seem I'm in the vast majority of people.

It's not I that have taken the numerous actions the ST have (including personal negative tweets about the owner and blocking of people - and a bizarre vlog from the Chair of the ST hinting strongly of untoward going on within the club) that have made them become widely unpopular - so much so that even paid up ST members openly criticise them and their (unelected) decisions.  

They've made that bed themselves!



As for survival - if you've no money and no one will give you any, then you have to sell-off the family silver or die.

What other choice is there?

Kane57

avatar
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Think we all have the same opinion of Mr Izza

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?

No it doesn't.

The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six months to raise money to but the asset.

Even then the club owner can sell to who he wants - even if it is for less money.

So all along I've argued that if the ST can't raise millions to buy the assets then what really is the point of them getting an ACV other than as a means of simply irritating the owner, delaying him by 6 months and devaluing the value of the asset whilst people have to wait to go through the whole process every time they want to buy or sell it.

Think Hotel rather than the ground and you will soon see why it is so absurd and damaging to the clubs future.
So if Anderson can still pawn the assets to refinance the club (momentarily giving him the benefit of the doubt despite his track record) what is he complaining about?  

He's saying that the ACV affects refinancing - which according to you is simply untrue.

The only impact the ACV would have is if he wanted to sell off club assets (as opposed to use them as collateral against loans) so maybe his problem is that he can't asset strip and pocketing the money whilst the ACV is in place - which IMO is a very legitimate concern given that he's been barred from Directorship in the past for doing just that.

As for the ST having the money to buy if it came up for sale the truth of the matter is that they won't need that money until required and they would have six months to put together a consortium or raise the money from the community.

I find it really difficult to believe Anderson is complaining about the ACV for legitimate reasons.

If he genuinely wanted to refinance the club for legitimate reasons, surely the simplest thing to do would be sell off some of his shares for actual dosh as that would bring new money into the club to reduce the club's exposure and interest payments - much more in the club's interest than more loans and more debt.

If he genuinely cares about the club's interests he should put his shares where his mouth is rather than put the club deeper into hock.

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?

No it doesn't.

The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six months to raise money to but the asset.

Even then the club owner can sell to who he wants - even if it is for less money.

So all along I've argued that if the ST can't raise millions to buy the assets then what really is the point of them getting an ACV other than as a means of simply irritating the owner, delaying him by 6 months and devaluing the value of the asset whilst people have to wait to go through the whole process every time they want to buy or sell it.

Think Hotel rather than the ground and you will soon see why it is so absurd and damaging to the clubs future.
So if Anderson can still pawn the assets to refinance the club (momentarily giving him the benefit of the doubt despite his track record) what is he complaining about?  

He's saying that the ACV affects refinancing - which according to you is simply untrue.

The only impact the ACV would have is if he wanted to sell off club assets (as opposed to use them as collateral against loans) so maybe his problem is that he can't asset strip and pocketing the money whilst the ACV is in place - which IMO is a very legitimate concern given that he's been barred from Directorship in the past for doing just that.

As for the ST having the money to buy if it came up for sale the truth of the matter is that they won't need that money until required and they would have six months to put together a consortium or raise the money from the community.

I find it really difficult to believe Anderson is complaining about the ACV for legitimate reasons.

If he genuinely wanted to refinance the club for legitimate reasons, surely the simplest thing to do would be sell off some of his shares for actual dosh as that would bring new money into the club to reduce the club's exposure and interest payments - much more in the club's interest than more loans and more debt.

If he genuinely cares about the club's interests he should put his shares where his mouth is rather than put the club deeper into hock.
Just an afterthought...

If someone wanted to buy Anderson's shares, they'd be buying them off him not the club so he'd receive the money and not the club - is that right?

And is it not also right that Anderson didn't pay for his shares? Didn't he renegotiate the terms of the BM loan by putting the club's assets up as collateral? (I.e. the club paid for them?)

So do Deano's shares belong to the club or to Anderson? Who paid for them and who will get the money when they are sold?

In fact how much of his own money has Anderson put into the club (and left in) in total?

And how much additional debt has he run up on behalf of the club since he took over?

Anybody know?

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?

No it doesn't.

The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six months to raise money to but the asset.

Even then the club owner can sell to who he wants - even if it is for less money.

So all along I've argued that if the ST can't raise millions to buy the assets then what really is the point of them getting an ACV other than as a means of simply irritating the owner, delaying him by 6 months and devaluing the value of the asset whilst people have to wait to go through the whole process every time they want to buy or sell it.

Think Hotel rather than the ground and you will soon see why it is so absurd and damaging to the clubs future.
So if Anderson can still pawn the assets to refinance the club (momentarily giving him the benefit of the doubt despite his track record) what is he complaining about?  

He's saying that the ACV affects refinancing - which according to you is simply untrue.

The only impact the ACV would have is if he wanted to sell off club assets (as opposed to use them as collateral against loans) so maybe his problem is that he can't asset strip and pocketing the money whilst the ACV is in place - which IMO is a very legitimate concern given that he's been barred from Directorship in the past for doing just that.

As for the ST having the money to buy if it came up for sale the truth of the matter is that they won't need that money until required and they would have six months to put together a consortium or raise the money from the community.

I find it really difficult to believe Anderson is complaining about the ACV for legitimate reasons.

If he genuinely wanted to refinance the club for legitimate reasons, surely the simplest thing to do would be sell off some of his shares for actual dosh as that would bring new money into the club to reduce the club's exposure and interest payments - much more in the club's interest than more loans and more debt.

If he genuinely cares about the club's interests he should put his shares where his mouth is rather than put the club deeper into hock.

Here we go again!

Where do I say that the ACV affects refinancing? I don't.

Obviously having a constrain on an asset does negatively affects it!!!

If he wants to use the money from a sale to pay back loans - then where is the asset stripping - he can't be both paying off loans and pocketing the same money at the same time can he?

As for the ST buying the ground - they could have six years let alone six months to raise it - and they would still be millions short even then! Unless they've got a multi-millionaire in their pocket and they haven't - they are never going to buy the ground.

If they have do it now because Anderson WANTS to sell and they WANT to buy - so why not do it?

Because they haven't got the money, full stop.

As for Anderson being an asset stripper, I have the same confidence in you being as bob on with that as you were telling us that Anderson would never be in a financial position to persuade the EFL to raise the embargo.

And finally and hysterically, you want someone to buy a minority holding of his shares after telling us all how that is the most stupidest thing you could do in business!!!

I'm convinced you just make stuff up in your head.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:
Just an afterthought...

If someone wanted to buy Anderson's shares, they'd be buying them off him not the club so he'd receive the money and not the club - is that right?

And is it not also right that Anderson didn't pay for his shares? Didn't he renegotiate the terms of the BM loan by putting the club's assets up as collateral? (I.e. the club paid for them?)

So do Deano's shares belong to the club or to Anderson? Who paid for them and who will get the money when they are sold?

In fact how much of his own money has Anderson put into the club (and left in) in total?

And how much additional debt has he run up on behalf of the club since he took over?

Anybody know?

No, Anderson's shares are owned by his company not him personally.

No, the clubs assets were already secured for collateral by Holdsworth as per his BM deal.

No, it seems to me that the club bought back the shares and cancelled them - so no one owns them. The net result however is that Anderson's existing shares would in percentage terns of ownership simply double. (Just my guess on things though).

No, Holdsworth shares no longer exists.

What makes you think he's run up any additional debt? There's no additional charges registered at Companies House against the club.

Happy to help!

Rolling Eyes

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
Just an afterthought...

If someone wanted to buy Anderson's shares, they'd be buying them off him not the club so he'd receive the money and not the club - is that right?

And is it not also right that Anderson didn't pay for his shares? Didn't he renegotiate the terms of the BM loan by putting the club's assets up as collateral? (I.e. the club paid for them?)

So do Deano's shares belong to the club or to Anderson? Who paid for them and who will get the money when they are sold?

In fact how much of his own money has Anderson put into the club (and left in) in total?

And how much additional debt has he run up on behalf of the club since he took over?

Anybody know?

No, Anderson's shares are owned by his company not him personally.

No, the clubs assets were already secured for collateral by Holdsworth as per his BM deal.

No, it seems to me that the club bought back the shares and cancelled them - so no one owns them.  The net result however is that Anderson's existing shares would in percentage terns of ownership simply double.  (Just my guess on things though).

No, Holdsworth shares no longer exists.

What makes you think he's run up any additional debt?  There's no additional charges registered at Companies House against the club.

Happy to help!

Rolling Eyes

I don't understand. 
First you say Anderson's company (i.e. Anderson) own Deano's shares and then you say Deano's shares no longer exist.

Are you're saying that Anderson's company actually paid real money to acquire Deano's shares as opposed to using BWFC assets to get the shares for Anderson/his company? Because if Anderson's company didn't throw any money at it, then all Anderson has done has increased BWFC's debt AND funnelled assets out of BWFC and into Anderson PLC.

Alternatively, if Deano's shares were written off, does that mean that the 5% still held by small shareholders increased pro rata with Anderson's existing shares?

Or are you just wildly guessing what actually happened and using your spurious conclusions to make be argumentative?

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
Just an afterthought...

If someone wanted to buy Anderson's shares, they'd be buying them off him not the club so he'd receive the money and not the club - is that right?

And is it not also right that Anderson didn't pay for his shares? Didn't he renegotiate the terms of the BM loan by putting the club's assets up as collateral? (I.e. the club paid for them?)

So do Deano's shares belong to the club or to Anderson? Who paid for them and who will get the money when they are sold?

In fact how much of his own money has Anderson put into the club (and left in) in total?

And how much additional debt has he run up on behalf of the club since he took over?

Anybody know?

No, Anderson's shares are owned by his company not him personally.

No, the clubs assets were already secured for collateral by Holdsworth as per his BM deal.

No, it seems to me that the club bought back the shares and cancelled them - so no one owns them.  The net result however is that Anderson's existing shares would in percentage terns of ownership simply double.  (Just my guess on things though).

No, Holdsworth shares no longer exists.

What makes you think he's run up any additional debt?  There's no additional charges registered at Companies House against the club.

Happy to help!

Rolling Eyes

I don't understand. 
First you say Anderson's company (i.e. Anderson) own Deano's shares and then you say Deano's shares no longer exist.

Are you're saying that Anderson's company actually paid real money to acquire Deano's shares as opposed to using BWFC assets to get the shares for Anderson/his company? Because if Anderson's company didn't throw any money at it, then all Anderson has done has increased BWFC's debt AND funnelled assets out of BWFC and into Anderson PLC.

Alternatively, if Deano's shares were written off, does that mean that the 5% still held by small shareholders increased pro rata with Anderson's existing shares?

Or are you just wildly guessing what actually happened and using your spurious conclusions to make be argumentative?

No I didn't read it again.

Companies can and do buy back their shareholdings.

This what I believed happened.

The club bought back Holdsworth shares and cancelled them.

The result was that everybody else's shares not bought back increased in ownership terms by a percentage.

As Holdsworth had roughly half of the shares and so to did Anderson, it meant that if Holdsworth shares were cancelled then Anderson now held (without acquiring a single more share) around 90 odd percent of the club.

In effect the club give money for Holdsworth shares, which went to the liquidator to pay on to BM, and these shares where then torn up, leaving everybody with the same number of shares but their being a small overall total - so a larger percentage owner of the club.

It's all there in my post above.

It's clear.

It's unambiguous.

And you clearly didn't read it properly.





boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
Just an afterthought...

If someone wanted to buy Anderson's shares, they'd be buying them off him not the club so he'd receive the money and not the club - is that right?

And is it not also right that Anderson didn't pay for his shares? Didn't he renegotiate the terms of the BM loan by putting the club's assets up as collateral? (I.e. the club paid for them?)

So do Deano's shares belong to the club or to Anderson? Who paid for them and who will get the money when they are sold?

In fact how much of his own money has Anderson put into the club (and left in) in total?

And how much additional debt has he run up on behalf of the club since he took over?

Anybody know?

No, Anderson's shares are owned by his company not him personally.

No, the clubs assets were already secured for collateral by Holdsworth as per his BM deal.

No, it seems to me that the club bought back the shares and cancelled them - so no one owns them.  The net result however is that Anderson's existing shares would in percentage terns of ownership simply double.  (Just my guess on things though).

No, Holdsworth shares no longer exists.

What makes you think he's run up any additional debt?  There's no additional charges registered at Companies House against the club.

Happy to help!

Rolling Eyes

I don't understand. 
First you say Anderson's company (i.e. Anderson) own Deano's shares and then you say Deano's shares no longer exist.

Are you're saying that Anderson's company actually paid real money to acquire Deano's shares as opposed to using BWFC assets to get the shares for Anderson/his company? Because if Anderson's company didn't throw any money at it, then all Anderson has done has increased BWFC's debt AND funnelled assets out of BWFC and into Anderson PLC.

Alternatively, if Deano's shares were written off, does that mean that the 5% still held by small shareholders increased pro rata with Anderson's existing shares?

Or are you just wildly guessing what actually happened and using your spurious conclusions to make be argumentative?



Companies can and do buy back their shareholdings.

This what I believed happened.

The club bought back Holdsworth shares and cancelled them.

You'll get there one day, but for now at least you seem to be confirming that:

BWFC i.e. the club bought the shares, presumably the sole decision of the majority shareholder Anderson and in doing so massively increased Anderson's stake without personally costing him (or his company) a penny.
By this action he simultaneously increased the club's debt by forcing the club to take on Deano's BM debt and at the same time effectively blocked any new money being invested in BWFC.

Thanks Ken because what the club really needs right now is more debt, more interest to pay leaving no funds to invest in the struggling team.

On the positive side, it hasn't cost Anderson anything and he consolidated his shareholding so that he'll make an even greater fortune when he finally does cash out. Wanker.

Basically this con man now controls/owns the vast majority of BWFC and it's estimated £40 million worth of  assets for a total investment of what? £5 million?

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:Companies can and do buy back their shareholdings.

This what I believed happened.

The club bought back Holdsworth shares and cancelled them.

You'll get there one day, but for now at least you seem to be confirming that:

BWFC i.e. the club bought the shares, presumably the sole decision of the majority shareholder Anderson and in doing so massively increased Anderson's stake without personally costing him (or his company) a penny.
By this action he simultaneously increased the club's debt by forcing the club to take on Deano's BM debt and at the same time effectively blocked any new money being invested in BWFC.

Thanks Ken because what the club really needs right now is more debt, more interest to pay leaving no funds to invest in the struggling team.

On the positive side, it hasn't cost Anderson anything and he consolidated his shareholding so that he'll make an even greater fortune when he finally does cash out. Wanker.

Basically this con man now controls/owns the vast majority of BWFC and it's estimated £40 million worth of  assets for a total investment of what? £5 million?

I'm confirming nothing you moonman!!!

I've no idea why you keeping banging on and on and on, about Anderson taking on the BM debt - it was already there as a charge on the assets put there by the clubs joint owner Holdsworth.

If he hadn't have accepted it, then the liquidator would simply seized the assets and sold them off.  Yes we would be £5 million plus interest less in debt but we would also have £5 million plus interest less in assets too!

I'm sure the accounts would have reflected the BM charge prior to the resolution of the matter in any event.

As for all this being such a bad thing for the future of the club, the EFL obviously agreed and that is why they didn't lift the embargo - oh wait a second - they did lift the embargo!!!

Clearly the leagues governing body thought it was the correct thing to do and lifted the embargo almost immediately afterwards and 630 days since the debacle left behind by Gartside and Davies - which Anderson seems to have singlehandedly resolved so far.

Frankly I have no idea of what game you are playing - do you really believe what you post, or are you trying to troll me by posting shit for me to react to or something, or do you simply not comprehend what is happening???

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
How long was it before Anderson stepped in to grab the shares? A week? 
Hardly sufficient time to source an outside investor with real money to put in - so seizing the club's assets was by no means the only alternative to Anderson's intervention despite you writing it as if your speculation was fact.
The better outcome was obviously finding an investor whose payments would have reduced the claim on the club's assets.

I'm ignoring the rest of your nonsense.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:How long was it before Anderson stepped in to grab the shares? A week? 
Hardly sufficient time to source an outside investor with real money to put in - so seizing the club's assets was by no means the only alternative to Anderson's intervention despite you writing it as if your speculation was fact.
The better outcome was obviously finding an investor whose payments would have reduced the claim on the club's assets.

I'm ignoring the rest of your nonsense.

A week!?!

He's been reporting he's been after the shares for several months and had numerous deals with Holdsworth that Dean withdrew from!

You, know, the same amount of time Holdsworth could have found someone else to buy the shares from him!!!

Where are all these mythical investors to buy Holdsworth shares?

(Also do I need to remind you of what you posted about someone acquiring a minority shareholding?)

Why hasn't Anderson with virtual monopoly of the shares now not immediately sold out to all these million and billionaires that are supposedly in the wings?

Maybe because there are none there and he's having to keep all the balls in the air himself for now?



As for me writing it as though my speculation was fact - what utter bollocks.

Don't be blaming me for what I clearly wrote in black and white and which you even specifically quoted in your reply above.

Christ you can't make such shit up - you copied just THREE lines of mine - and one of them clearly, specifically and unambiguously said that it was "what I believed happened"!!!

How is that hiding it from you?

Rolling Eyes

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum