Supporters Trust

The latest release is a step in the right direction imo.  Althoigh izza has slated KA in the past everyone can change their opinion of someone.  I have of dean holdsworth.

y2johnny wrote:The latest release is a step in the right direction imo.  Althoigh izza has slated KA in the past everyone can change their opinion of someone.  I have of dean holdsworth.

You are of course right Johnny when you say people can and do change their minds about people but take a look at what Izza said in really what was a very tame interview with Wanderers Station above - he TWICE made the remark about "keeping the owners to account".

Izza hasn't changed his spots just yet and whilst he is Chair of the ST I doubt they have either.

Sluffy wrote:You are of course right Johnny when you say people can and do change their minds about people but take a look at what Izza said in really what was a very tame interview with Wanderers Station above - he TWICE made the remark about "keeping the owners to account".

Izza hasn't changed his spots just yet and whilst he is Chair of the ST I doubt they have either.

I don't see an issue with the ST saying that they will hold the owners to account, in fact I believe that is a key part of there role.

The issue comes when they where clearly trying to undermine the owners in an apparent attempt to get ownership of the club for themselves.

The ST need to realise that in order to do their job effectively they need a good relationship with the owners whilst being able to maintain the confidence of it's members that it is acting in a manner to ensure decisions are took in the clubs best interests.

Its not at all uncommon, in all walks of life, for malpractice to go unchecked by regulatory authorities and for irregularities only to be addressed after they have been brought to light by the determined efforts of interested parties. The ST has held itself out as being ready and willing to hold the board to account but if it is quick to criticise and slow to praise or is perceived to be acting with unfair bias it will gain little credibility.

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

You are of course right Johnny when you say people can and do change their minds about people but take a look at what Izza said in really what was a very tame interview with Wanderers Station above - he TWICE made the remark about "keeping the owners to account".

Izza hasn't changed his spots just yet and whilst he is Chair of the ST I doubt they have either.

I don't see an issue with the ST saying that they will hold the owners to account, in fact I believe that is a key part of their role.

Absolutely. Whilst everything KA has done so far has been in line with the behaviour of an altruistic owner attempting to turn the finances around, it is also in line with that of someone looking to make a killing on resale. It would be naive to assume that what you see on the surface is everything and a supporter's trust should have keeping an eye on the owners front and centre of their activities. 
Doesn't mean they are accusing KA of anything in the same way that having a police force doesn't mean that the Government thinks everyone is guilty - it's just a sensible precaution.

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Sluffy wrote:You are of course right Johnny when you say people can and do change their minds about people but take a look at what Izza said in really what was a very tame interview with Wanderers Station above - he TWICE made the remark about "keeping the owners to account".

Izza hasn't changed his spots just yet and whilst he is Chair of the ST I doubt they have either.

I don't see an issue with the ST saying that they will hold the owners to account, in fact I believe that is a key part of there role.

The issue comes when they where clearly trying to undermine the owners in an apparent attempt to get ownership of the club for themselves.

The ST need to realise that in order to do their job effectively they need a good relationship with the owners whilst being able to maintain the confidence of it's members that it is acting in a manner to ensure decisions are took in the clubs best interests.

How can they hold anyone to account though?

They have no powers over the club.

They have no access to the financial dealings of the club.

They aren't even involved with the club - unless the club lets them.

Blackpool has a ST.

If they can't land a glove on Oysten then what even is the point in saying our ST will hold our owners to account?

It even look as though one of our owners has had major difficulties in even bring his fellow owner to account - let alone a toothless ST.

It's just unnecessary, aggressive and ongoing rhetoric from the ST that doesn't help anybody in my opinion.

Empty barrels.

Empty words.

Anyway back to Mr Izza. Is he re-writing history to suit his agenda? I've been a supporter for a lot longer than him and can't honestly say that I recall Garty's predecessors engaging a lot with fans.

But, along with a great many folk I know, I met Garty several times and found him always more than ready to spend time engaging with supporters and talking about the club.

You can't be going round saying Gartside was a nice chap. He's been analysed, cut and diced and finally demonised on here - which is what happens to all previous owners, managers and occasionally players eventually, even though most of us don't know them personally and base it all on snippets in the media.

wanderlust wrote:You can't be going round saying Gartside was a nice chap. He's been analysed, cut and diced and finally demonised on here - which is what happens to all previous owners, managers and occasionally players eventually, even though most of us don't know them personally and base it all on snippets in the media.

And there's me thinking that the average Bolton Nuts member might be a cut above contributors to other BWFC sites.

Hard to read a Sluffy ST post with a straight face but I've invited Izza to a Q&A with fan submitted questions so let's see if he replies

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:You can't be going round saying Gartside was a nice chap. He's been analysed, cut and diced and finally demonised on here - which is what happens to all previous owners, managers and occasionally players eventually, even though most of us don't know them personally and base it all on snippets in the media.

And there's me thinking that the average Bolton Nuts member might be a cut above contributors to other BWFC sites.

Wanderlust is being sarcastic I think.

Gartside was a Wanderers fan who I think towards the end let his heart rule his head.

We can only assume that Davies gave Gartside free reign most of the time but his inability to see any wrong it Coyle cost us firstly an unnecessary relegation and was then compounded by the utterly ridiculous wages and length of contracts issued in our first season back in the Championship to average (at very best) players.

I think it fair to say no matter what anybody thought about him on here, we were all saddened and upset by his tragic death.

Kane57 wrote:Hard to read a Sluffy ST post with a straight face but I've invited Izza to a Q&A with fan submitted questions so let's see if he replies

I'm not sure if you are giving me a compliment or taking the piss out of me (I assume it is the latter) but I thank you anyway.

You may already have seen on this very thread that Izza did an interview with another BWFC blog site (Wanderers Station) a few days ago, which to be fair was a bit on the tame side - so I hope he does agree to do a Q&A with you at the LoV with some harder hitting questions.

If you want one off me, I would like to know why, in his capacity as the Chairman of the ST, who stated in his interview with WS that a part of the Trust role is "keeping the views of the fans in the mind of the club", that he deliberately blocked our Nuts twitter site - not for something we said on twitter - but for factually reporting his previous tweets made in the public domain about the clubs current owner - on a completely separate social media medium - namely posts made by me HERE on the Nuts forum?

Does he not believe in 'keeping the views of the fans in the mind of the ST' too, or is he simply a hypocrite with double standards, as it seems it is ok for him to express negative opinions about the clubs owner on twitter but not for someone else to repeat them on a fans forum because they are more widely read by the whole spectrum of Wanderers supporters and which undoubtedly reflects badly on him?

As a follow up question ask him why he believes the ST should be honest, open and transparent yet he acts in a way that isn't honest, open and transparent by blocking someone (the Nuts twitter account) not for anything that was ever TWEETED but for repeating his existing tweets made in the public domain on this very FORUM!

Is blocking someone for simply repeating what you have already said an honest, open and transparent way of acting in a responsible manner?



I can't see him responding to that though - can you?




If he does give you an interview we will be happy to post it up on here also for all to read (irrespective if he answers my questions or not!).

As we don't believe in blocking and attempting to silence people simply because we don't always agree with then.

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:You can't be going round saying Gartside was a nice chap. He's been analysed, cut and diced and finally demonised on here - which is what happens to all previous owners, managers and occasionally players eventually, even though most of us don't know them personally and base it all on snippets in the media.

And there's me thinking that the average Bolton Nuts member might be a cut above contributors to other BWFC sites.

Wanderlust is being sarcastic I think.

Gartside was a Wanderers fan who I think towards the end let his heart rule his head.

We can only assume that Davies gave Gartside free reign most of the time but his inability to see any wrong it Coyle cost us firstly an unnecessary relegation and was then compounded by the utterly ridiculous wages and length of contracts issued in our first season back in the Championship to average (at very best) players.

I think it fair to say no matter what anybody thought about him on here, we were all saddened and upset by his tragic death.

I know Wanderlust comments were a bit tongue in cheek but I wasn't commenting on whether Garty was a nice bloke or on his abilities at managing or mismanaging the club's finances. My comments were related to Mr Izza's comments that 'the club was becoming more remote from the fans in the Gartside era', which was the polar opposite of my own experiences.

The 'Gartside era' as it happens was very successful for many years not just in maintaining Premiership status for longer than anyone would have predicted but bringing some unbelievably talented players into the club, several of them retaining a strong affection for BWFC long after they left.

But we can all see perfectly, with the benefit of hindsight, the mistakes that were made, can't we?

Anyway I've got some questions for Mr Izza but I think I might just wait to see what comes out on Monday first.

The problem with Gartside he was all smiles and his face was everywhere when we were doing well, but as soon as things deteriorated then he disappeared from public view, which is when we needed him most to come out and explain exactly what was happening with the club.

I have no doubt he had the clubs best interests at heart but eventually he and Uncle Eddie let us down big time.

Norpig wrote:The problem with Gartside he was all smiles and his face was everywhere when we were doing well, but as soon as things deteriorated then he disappeared from public view, which is when we needed him most to come out and explain exactly what was happening with the club.

I have no doubt he had the clubs best interests at heart but eventually he and Uncle Eddie let us down big time.

The problem with some supporters is they might give you a pat you on the back when things are going well but will pelt you with bricks when they are not.

According to KA, Uncle Eddie spent £185million supporting the club. I reached the same figure from my own calculations and that is out of capital. It doesn't include the unpaid or re-invested interest on his loans.

Fair point Ten Bob but Uncle Eddie didn't have to leave us in the mess we are now did he? He withdrew his money and left us in the lurch.
Yes he did finance the good times but the way he acted at the end brought him down massively in my estimations and probably main other fans.

Norpig wrote:Fair point Ten Bob but Uncle Eddie didn't have to leave us in the mess we are now did he? He withdrew his money and left us in the lurch.
Yes he did finance the good times but the way he acted at the end brought him down massively in my estimations and probably main other fans.

What money did he withdraw? He wrote off £170million of his loans to the club leaving £15.2 million in as a 'soft loan'. £5million of that has since been written off. KA expects the rest to be written off too, doubtless on the basis of discussions he has had with Uncle Eddie.

The other debt that was left was tiny for a club of Bolton's stature. £5.5million from Prescott Business Parks and £2.5million from Brett Warburton and no bank overdraft.

By way of comparison,  the bank debt was £25million when Eddie Davies first invested in BWFC and had increased to £43million when Sam Allardyce left.

The reporting of Uncle Eddie's investment in BWFC has been so consistently poor (the Bolton News and the Guardian in particular) that its little wonder that many supporters are confused about what really happened.

What the club needed most of all last year was someone with the experience and ability to address the trading deficit and restore sustainability. Uncle Eddie entrusted that task to Ken Anderson and so far he hasn't done too badly. The job isn't finished but the ST has been slow and grudging in recognising KA's efforts to date.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Norpig wrote:Fair point Ten Bob but Uncle Eddie didn't have to leave us in the mess we are now did he? He withdrew his money and left us in the lurch.
Yes he did finance the good times but the way he acted at the end brought him down massively in my estimations and probably main other fans.

What money did he withdraw? He wrote off £170million of his loans to the club leaving £15.2 million in as a 'soft loan'. £5million of that has since been written off. KA expects the rest to be written off too, doubtless on the basis of discussions he has had with Uncle Eddie.

The other debt that was left was tiny for a club of Bolton's stature. £5.5million from Prescott Business Parks and £2.5million from Brett Warburton and no bank overdraft.

By way of comparison,  the bank debt was £25million when Eddie Davies first invested in BWFC and had increased to £43million when Sam Allardyce left.

The reporting of Uncle Eddie's investment in BWFC has been so consistently poor (the Bolton News and the Guardian in particular) that its little wonder that many supporters are confused about what really happened.

What the club needed most of all last year was someone with the experience and ability to address the trading deficit and restore sustainability. Uncle Eddie entrusted that task to Ken Anderson and so far he hasn't done too badly. The job isn't finished but the ST has been slow and grudging in recognising KA's efforts to date.

I agree. BTW you have a very familiar writing style.....

Is it Mrs Wanderlust?

Natasha Whittam wrote:Is it Mrs Wanderlust?

No its not, but how long will I be stuck with David Ngog and who do you get next?