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 : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Ken putting more dirty washing out in public today.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Kane57 wrote:Ken putting more dirty washing out in public today.

I don't see it that way.

Simply looks like fair comment to me.

If the ST have an elected mandated approval from their membership about opposing the ACV then let them show it - otherwise it is just appearing to be a personal vendetta being held by those on the ST Board against him.

You simply can't purport to be acting as a public body representative of your members wishes if you haven't canvassed their opinion on the matter of removing the AVC.

It's not what you want that counts, it's what your members want that you represent and act on.

Note also the ST annual elections are now three months overdue (a quarter of a year already - only 9 months and reducing daily to the next one!)


From Anderson's statement today -

Reflecting on matters off the pitch, I have read the comments expressed by Daniel Izza, the chairman of the BWST, concerning the ACV which are of course disappointing, but not unexpected.
I have already expressed my views on this matter and won't be commenting any further at this time other than to say that l have received many expressions of support from Trust members and from what l have seen on social media, not all those involved in the Trust share Daniel’s opinions.
Hopefully, he consulted the members before submitting the application, although my experience to date has shown that this has not always been the case.
As it stands, l cannot see the club working in tandem and harmony with the Trust going forward, but we will continue to work with the Bolton Wanderers Supporters Association, who we have found to be far more supportive and helpful in trying to assist the club in its quest for financial stability and success on and off the field.

Full statement here on Nuts -

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

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I'm an ST member and i don't remember being asked my opinion on whether we wanted an ACV? Any other ST members remember being asked?

It could just be as i tend to hardly read any of the emails they send now as i am very disillusioned with them as an organisation.

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
They don't ask anything.

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Norpig wrote:I'm an ST member and i don't remember being asked my opinion on whether we wanted an ACV? Any other ST members remember being asked?

It could just be as i tend to hardly read any of the emails they send now as i am very disillusioned with them as an organisation.

I've emailed them on countless occasions with nothing back. It's sad really.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Forgive me for perhaps being a bit school 'teacherish' (is there such a word?) but I think one clear distinction needs to be pointed out.

The difference between Ken Anderson/BWFC - and Daniel Izza/the ST is that Mr A OWNS the club where as the ST is a public body who as such has an elected Board to represent it.

Therefore Ken Andersons voice IS BWFC's voice - and thus he can say whatever he wants to - that in effect is always going to be BWFC's position on things.

However the exact opposite is true of a public body like the ST, where it is the MEMBERS wishes that are represented by the Board - and not their own personal ones.

If the ST IS acting on the wishes of their membership majority - then fair enough - but seeing they've never had a voted on election and the half the current Board have already served 25% longer than the twelve months they were appointed for - then not only do I think they are acting outside of their authority but I also believe (under ultra vires) that any costs they incur whilst doing so they personally become liable for!

King Bill

avatar
David Lee
David Lee
KA wants his cake and eat it. Over such a small detail as an AVC why play one BWFC group against another in public.
Ken's job is to keep the club running until he cashes in. 
He's washed his dirty laundry in public before with his spat with Holdsworth a few months ago, and was forced to admit that he's always took his own money back from the club as soon as he could.
You'll still make a good butty at the end Ken, no need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Tweet from Izza  replying to Iles tweet -

The ST will support the club.thesupporters and ST will outlast owners who come and go.The stadium is an important part of our community.



wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

As I keep pointing out - an ACV is NOT a protection - it merely delays things by 6 months and allows the ST to raise money to bid for the stadium - which even then, the owner can sell to whoever he likes - even if the ST had bid the most!

The ACV a potential sale into the public domain.

The negatives to the owner and prospective buyer are plentiful.

Hands up anyone who honestly believes the ST will ever be able to raise enough money to buy the stadium.

None.

So what are they trying to prove by opposing it?

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:Tweet from Izza  replying to Iles tweet -

The ST will support the club.thesupporters and ST will outlast owners who come and go.The stadium is an important part of our community.



As an ST member  i don't support you as being in charge so fuck off will you?

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
It stops someone coming in with a view to a quick refinance so that's ok with me. What serious bidder would be put off by having to wait?

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
6 months is a long time to wait though and they could have their heads turned by another club in the meantime

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Kane57 wrote:It stops someone coming in with a view to a quick refinance so that's ok with me. What serious bidder would be put off by having to wait?

The same bidder who will have to wait another 6 months to sell it when he wants/needs to - and so on for every perspective buyer after that.

Why buy anything at market rate when there is a constrain on it?



King Bill

avatar
David Lee
David Lee
So you've proved the theory that there is nobody in it for the long term, except season ticket holders of course.

Guest


Guest
6 months could be the difference between staying up and going down. So its a big difference. 

Anyone who cant see that, well, thats on them.

If someone was to bid now for the club who had plenty of momey and could turn our fortunes round, theyd miss the opportunity as we would miss the January window.  Thats putting it in the simplest terms and like countless people have said on here, on twitter, facebook and other platforms, the members of the st didnt want it.  They also didnt want izza.  Yet they are stuck with both.

Bollotom2014

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Won't the ST be in breach of "Trust" status as they are behind with their elections. A bit strong in my eyes considering the ST were moaning about the books being behind. And if there haven't been any elections then the Trust no longer exists. Perhaps they will pull the old excuse given to me last year that there was no need for elections as the members were co-opted onto the committee. And how can Bolton Council listen to a non-existent group with any impartiality. 
I have a 24 hour duty starting at six. I might while away the quiet hours by emailing Supporters Direct and asking for clarification on how a Trust can function without elections, thus also without a mandate and what powers  the ST can bring to bear on local authorities and the club itself.

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
You'll do well to get a reply. They've been pretty shit at that

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Norpig wrote:6 months is a long time to wait though and they could have their heads turned by another club in the meantime

Of course but should Ken sell then I'd hope it goes to the right person, not just the first one.

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

As I keep pointing out - an ACV is NOT a protection - it merely delays things by 6 months and allows the ST to raise money to bid for the stadium - which even then, the owner can sell to whoever he likes - even if the ST had bid the most!

The ACV a potential sale into the public domain.

The negatives to the owner and prospective buyer are plentiful.

Hands up anyone who honestly believes the ST will ever be able to raise enough money to buy the stadium.

None.

So what are they trying to prove by opposing it?

Any sale of the ground would mean BWFC being held to ransom by the new owners, incurring long term debt and cost and I can't see a single good reason for Anderson wanting to bring that situation about.

Try looking at it down the other end of the telescope i.e why is Anderson so keen to spend the club's money (not his) on getting to a position where he can sell our ground - as opposed to managing his way out of our current position without stripping the club's assets even further and building the fixed cost base.

And i think that given 6 months,  the ST with the support of the Council could raise the requisite money and in that respect they are just another potential bidder that would provide competition in a bidding war - which would be the best scenario for the club.

In fact as of this moment the ST/Council have the most money of any potential buyer because Anderson doesn't have a buyer.

Unless of course his motivation to have the AV removed is to sell the Macron to Inner Circle for a fiver and then rent it back to BWFC at half a million a year.

I'm sure the ST could raise a tenner and outbid him, but whatever scam he tries to pull, the ACV will provide some degree of keeping him in check.

Guest


Guest
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

As I keep pointing out - an ACV is NOT a protection - it merely delays things by 6 months and allows the ST to raise money to bid for the stadium - which even then, the owner can sell to whoever he likes - even if the ST had bid the most!

The ACV a potential sale into the public domain.

The negatives to the owner and prospective buyer are plentiful.

Hands up anyone who honestly believes the ST will ever be able to raise enough money to buy the stadium.

None.

So what are they trying to prove by opposing it?

Any sale of the ground would mean BWFC being held to ransom by the new owners, incurring long term debt and cost and I can't see a single good reason for Anderson wanting to bring that situation about.

Try looking at it down the other end of the telescope i.e why is Anderson so keen to spend the club's money (not his) on getting to a position where he can sell our ground - as opposed to managing his way out of our current position without stripping the club's assets even further and building the fixed cost base.

And i think that given 6 months,  the ST with the support of the Council could raise the requisite money and in that respect they are just another potential bidder that would provide competition in a bidding war - which would be the best scenario for the club.

In fact as of this moment the ST/Council have the most money of any potential buyer because Anderson doesn't have a buyer.

Unless of course his motivation to have the AV removed is to sell the Macron to Inner Circle for a fiver and then rent it back to BWFC at half a million a year.

I'm sure the ST could raise a tenner and outbid him, but whatever scam he tries to pull, the ACV will provide some degree of keeping him in check.
:rofl:

King Bill

avatar
David Lee
David Lee
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

As I keep pointing out - an ACV is NOT a protection - it merely delays things by 6 months and allows the ST to raise money to bid for the stadium - which even then, the owner can sell to whoever he likes - even if the ST had bid the most!

The ACV a potential sale into the public domain.

The negatives to the owner and prospective buyer are plentiful.

Hands up anyone who honestly believes the ST will ever be able to raise enough money to buy the stadium.

None.

So what are they trying to prove by opposing it?

Any sale of the ground would mean BWFC being held to ransom by the new owners, incurring long term debt and cost and I can't see a single good reason for Anderson wanting to bring that situation about.

Try looking at it down the other end of the telescope i.e why is Anderson so keen to spend the club's money (not his) on getting to a position where he can sell our ground - as opposed to managing his way out of our current position without stripping the club's assets even further and building the fixed cost base.

And i think that given 6 months,  the ST with the support of the Council could raise the requisite money and in that respect they are just another potential bidder that would provide competition in a bidding war - which would be the best scenario for the club.

In fact as of this moment the ST/Council have the most money of any potential buyer because Anderson doesn't have a buyer.

Unless of course his motivation to have the AV removed is to sell the Macron to Inner Circle for a fiver and then rent it back to BWFC at half a million a year.

I'm sure the ST could raise a tenner and outbid him, but whatever scam he tries to pull, the ACV will provide some degree of keeping him in check.

Absolutely. If nothing else, the ACV is a safety net.

Why would KA want to rush through any potential deal that would affect the club (he has come to love) for years to come? If he did, it would look like he was in the business of a cut and run deal.

This episode doesn't reflect well on Ken. All over simply waiting a few months. He still holds all the cards. 

He's not put any of his own money into this project, and when he has, he's paid himself back asap. The club is surviving at the minute, that's all. But Ken's not growing it, merely keeping it as a going concern until he can off load it. 

He says he understands our great history. For the sake of an ACV, you have to understand its future too Ken.

Guest


Guest
How much less will the club be worth when it takes 6 months to complete a deal and we are already relegated

:facepalm:

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
King Bill wrote:So you've proved the theory that there is nobody in it for the long term, except season ticket holders of course.

In the long run we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes.

Unless you plan to live forever, you're as transient as a fan of the club as Anderson is as an owner of the club.

Nothing stays the same, owners come and go Season ticket holders stop being Season Ticket holders for whatever reasons, and other may well take their place - or not.

I well remember crowds of 4,000 or less at Burnden - and that was long before Anderson appeared on the scene.

Where were the rest of the season ticket holders back then?

Fall on hard times again and it will just be the same again.

People are fickle.

Do you know I trust Anderson more than I do the Board at the ST - the ones that have never been elected by vote, the ones who have not held their mandatory AGM, the ones that have served 15 months in a position they should only have held for 12 months (3 members serve for 2 years and 3 members serve of 12 months and must step down and put themselves up for re-election if they want to be elected back on the board).  

The ones that 'block' people because they hold a different view to them, the ones that post a bizarre vlog (featuring their hairy nose!) inferring untoward behaviour by the club owner - yet haven't taken any evidence of this to the proper authority.

The ones that won't tell anyone their actual eligible to vote membership number, the ones that refuse to canvass their members about not opposing the withdrawal of the ACV.

The ones that have never held Holdsworth accountable for anything - even those as a joint owner of the club up to only last week - and who has been involved in every major issue that has effected the club - for which they blame Anderson exclusively and totally.

The ones who went 'snitching' to the EFL about Anderson at the very time when the club was facing court action and got told by the governing body to get back in their box!

The ones that tried to buy 10% of the club for a puny £140,000 (which they didn't have), when they thought they could shaft Anderson over his financial position at the time.

The ones tried scare tactics of telling us how the club needed a massive £30 million to get through last season - well we didn't did we!

The ones whose own financial accounts are outstanding - how ironic is that!

The ones who...  

Well I could go on but even I'm beginning to get bored of writing all their shenanigans down - yet they want to potentially to one day own the club and buy the Stadium.

Supporters TRUST - never has a word been more wrongly used than with this bunch of wanabee club owners.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
y2johnny wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

As I keep pointing out - an ACV is NOT a protection - it merely delays things by 6 months and allows the ST to raise money to bid for the stadium - which even then, the owner can sell to whoever he likes - even if the ST had bid the most!

The ACV a potential sale into the public domain.

The negatives to the owner and prospective buyer are plentiful.

Hands up anyone who honestly believes the ST will ever be able to raise enough money to buy the stadium.

None.

So what are they trying to prove by opposing it?

Any sale of the ground would mean BWFC being held to ransom by the new owners, incurring long term debt and cost and I can't see a single good reason for Anderson wanting to bring that situation about.

Try looking at it down the other end of the telescope i.e why is Anderson so keen to spend the club's money (not his) on getting to a position where he can sell our ground - as opposed to managing his way out of our current position without stripping the club's assets even further and building the fixed cost base.

And i think that given 6 months,  the ST with the support of the Council could raise the requisite money and in that respect they are just another potential bidder that would provide competition in a bidding war - which would be the best scenario for the club.

In fact as of this moment the ST/Council have the most money of any potential buyer because Anderson doesn't have a buyer.

Unless of course his motivation to have the AV removed is to sell the Macron to Inner Circle for a fiver and then rent it back to BWFC at half a million a year.

I'm sure the ST could raise a tenner and outbid him, but whatever scam he tries to pull, the ACV will provide some degree of keeping him in check.
:rofl:

Exactly Johnny.

Not much point trying to reason with the moonman.

I'm sure Bolton MBC are pleased to know they are going to stump up £10+ million to buy the ground for the ST (when the people of the Borough can't even be interested enough to fill it to capacity these days) whilst having to find the money to build schools, provide for an ever increasing population, to provide care for the elderly and repair and maintain all the public highways - all whilst modernising the town centre at the same time.

No worries though - put the rest on hold Wanderlust says the ST needs it more!

Rolling Eyes

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Depressing. Wonder what Ken will do this week to distract us, the shady bastard

Guest


Guest
hopefully sell the club or attract a multi million pound sponsor.  Oh and bring back a certain manager

Fabians Right Peg

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Kane57 wrote:Depressing. Wonder what Ken will do this week to distract us, the shady bastard

Ken could break wind and half of our fans would start a debate on if it was good or bad for the club. Why should he do anything to try to distract from what is going on, it's in his own interest to sort it out.

luckyPeterpiper

avatar
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
Kane57 wrote:
Norpig wrote:I'm an ST member and i don't remember being asked my opinion on whether we wanted an ACV? Any other ST members remember being asked?

It could just be as i tend to hardly read any of the emails they send now as i am very disillusioned with them as an organisation.

I've emailed them on countless occasions with nothing back. It's sad really.
I'm sorry to say that makes three of us. I joined the ST in the (admittedly faint) hope that they would listen to people who told them not to seek an adversarial relationship with the club but from what I've seen so far I might as well have set fire to the tenner.

In truth I can't understand what the ST board really wants. They have to know they can't buy the club or even a significant percentage of it and they also have to know that an ACV WILL put off potential buyers. Red tape is always there and often it's necessary but an ACV will NOT protect the club's long term future in my opinion. It will harm it, possibly even fatally.

As to Ken Anderson, I think he's doing his best but he never had, or claimed to have the kind of money that would be needed to bring real on field success (ie return to the Prem) and he always saw himself and Dean as a stop gap, a sort of interim owner who could rebalance the clubs books then sell out for some sort of profit but circumstances have conspired against that.

Let me be clear. By balancing the books I do NOT mean paying off all the debts we owed. I mean that such debts would be restructured in a manner that allows them to be serviced from current income and cleared within a reasonable time frame (eg five to ten years), a not uncommon practice amongst middle sized limited companies. Sadly Dean got into serious trouble by how he financed his own side of the deal and that affected the public perception of where BWFC was at despite the club not actually being involved in that particular deal.

Now Ken is left with very few options. He needs to raise money, he has still got an embargo to deal with while the club is bottom of the league and winless after nine games and the squad HAS to be strengthened if we are to avoid relegation let alone get near the top six. If that means he needs to sell the ground to someone or better yet the Hotel in order to balance the books to the League's satisfaction then the sooner the better which is why an ACV in this case would be so harmful. I don't think we can AFFORD a six month wait.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Hi Peter, fantastic to hear from you again.

Hope you are well.

Where have you been?

We've missed you.

Very Happy

Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

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