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

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?

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.

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!

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!

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?

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!

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.

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!

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?

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???

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.

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?

Ken putting more dirty washing out in public today.

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.]

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.

They don't ask anything.

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.

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!

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.

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 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.

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?