You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Ken Anderson - update.

Ken Anderson - update.

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 18 ... 22  Next

Go down  Message [Page 14 of 22]

391 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sun Dec 02 2018, 11:59

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.

That's your problem right there!

You've had a preconceived view of Anderson right from the very start and blindly carry that on no matter what and 'bend' the facts to fit your agenda rather than accept them for what really is happening.

TWO people took on the club from Davies with a commitment to put £7.5 million investment into it - £5 million up front from Holdsworth and £2.5 million (if further money was required) from Anderson.  

That simply never happened because Holdsworth DIDN'T 'invest' into the club - he simply took a loan out against current assets!

Can any reasonable person expect Anderson to chuck in £2.5 million of his OWN money after that?  If you were in his shoes wouldn't you be saying where's YOUR £5 million Dean because you aren't seeing a penny of my money until YOU uphold your side of the bargain.  Just take it out as another payday loan Dean against the clubs assets just like you did - oh but wait you can't pay the monthly instalments on the one you've already taken out can you?  So if you aren't going to be putting anything in and I'm certainly not until you do - then the club is in an even worse mess than if we hadn't taken it on at all!

So you end up with a club having a need of £5 to 7.5 million from two owners/investors and end up with NO investment from one of them and the other eventually having to pay out (from the club and/or his own pocket) at least £1 million to get shut of the 'chancer' who had made things worse for a club that was already a financial basket case to begin with!!!

If Anderson had thought from the very beginning he had to invest a potential £7.5 million of his own money into the club in the first place he may very well have not got involved because he may very well hadn't that sort of money to risk, or simply hadn't got that money at all?

Rightly or wrongly it seems to me that through no obvious fault of his own he's ended up with a club he never intended to be sole owner of which he never had the funds and/or intent to invest more that £2.5 million in, which I interpret from the wording of the original agreement ('if required') meant to fund cash flow as and when needed - and not a one off cash injection.

So he's made the best for himself from the position he's found himself in, he's paid off Holdsworth, kept the club afloat through player sales, covered cash flow (when he's known he is sure to get his money back), got the club close to financially being breakeven - he will achieve that from next season on when we finally get shut of Amos's £16k per week salary - and still has an asset that he can sell on (if only he can find a genuine buyer for a club that has traditionally a limited support based in a catchment area of super clubs like United, City and possibly even Liverpool).

If he was ever going to do a runner he would have done it long before now don't you think - what's £50k per month (which the anti-Anderson's believe he's taking) to a man who is a tax exile in Switzerland, owns a property in Monaco and owns a ocean going yacht?

He's here to turn a profit on the club not to run it into the ground!  He's after millions (about £5 million) from a sale if he can not a few ten of thousand from the petty cash each month.

But then again the old saying still holds true that there are non so blind that those that will not see - and those are the one's so prejudist against Anderson from day one that they've chosen not to see what the true picture is.

392 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sun Dec 02 2018, 13:41

observer


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

393 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sun Dec 02 2018, 14:11

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Anderson only stepped in at the last minute - at the court hearing - when Holdsworth's 'money' partner up to the time 'pulled out'.

The agreement made at the court was that of Holdsworth putting in £5 million and Anderson a further £2.5 (IF required).

I can only assume Holdsworth and his former partner had shown proof of the money to the EFL (the BluMarble loan was clearly granted in advance of the court hearing - in fact there were only 16 days left of the loan period to settle the loan when Holdsworth and Anderson took over control of the club) and that 'proof' was based on the original moneyman having shown documentation to BluMarble that he had the assets to cover the £5 million.

I guess Anderson also showed proof he had £2.5 million tucked away but easily gettable to uphold his part of the deal - so on the outside looking in all the boxes seemed to have be ticked and approved.

The fly in the ointment so to speak was Holdsworth moving to secure the loan on BWFC assets - and not whatever the original security was going to be - on the day the deal went through - without the knowledge of such by KA.

As long as BM had the security the money was released - Holdsworth put it into the club (less a million set up fee?) and the EFL already had Holdsworth and KA as having passed their criteria - so everything went through.

Clearly when Anderson realised that Holdsworth hadn't actually brought any investment to the club - then it all started to go pear shaped - but with now Holdsworth owning half of the club without putting a penny into it (pocketing a million from the set up fees - allegedly?) and thinking/hoping that his new partner would still put in his £2.5 million to keep the club going and pay the monthly BM repayments - which of course was never going to happen.

Holdsworth was stuck in that he had a £5 million BM loan against him (SSBWFC) so he was never going to walk away from the club as he still was a half owner and he knew his 'personal' debt was covered by the club as long as he was still a partner there and I guess Anderson couldn't walk either without breaking his agreement to put £2.5 million into the club if needed - which of course it would be because Holdsworth had no money to pay his own SSBWFC company in order to pay the BM loan back.

My question would be how much did Eddie know about Holdsworth intent to secure the BM loan on BWFC assets because the club secretary Marland witnessed the documents levying the charge on assets on the day of the take over?

394 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sun Dec 02 2018, 14:21

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

395 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sun Dec 02 2018, 14:29

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.

396 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 01:12

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

397 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 02:01

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

Eh???

The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.

But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?

Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?

Rolling Eyes

398 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 09:04

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

Eh???

The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.

But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?

Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?

Rolling Eyes


I have to say, Sluffy, that when the laughably named Sports Shield consortium (two recently formed companies with a combined share capital of £2) took over BWFC I feared the worst. Like everyone else, I had seen photos of individuals with checkered histories showing up in the directors box, seemingly as guests of Dean Holdsworth. Ken Anderson also had history which some were more than keen to publicise.

My enquiries into Holdsworth indicated nothing to suggest that he had any money to spare or any experience that would justify him being appointed CEO of the Burnden Leisure group on a starting salary of £250K.

The first of three Sports Shield companies formed by Dean Holdsworth was Sports Shield Ltd incorporated in January 2015. On 5 April 2016 notice was given of the intention to strike the company off for failure to file accounts. The company then gave notice to extend its first accounting date to 31 March 2016 and filed these accounts on 29 December 2016. i.e. just two days before the extended filing deadline. The company accounts showed that it had £118,686 cash at the bank but where had this money come from? 

Holdsworth had been employed by a company called Xpro Management Services Ltd which went into liquidation in October 2015 with scarcely any assets and an estimated deficiency of £87K. What little the liquidator managed to collect all went in fees with nothing for the creditors.

I'm not implying that there was any wrongdoing in any of this but it does not suggest the kind of background or experience needed to run a group of companies with 260 employees and an annual turnover of £30million.

The Xpro set up is interesting in another respect in that its purpose seemed to have been to help retired footballers who had fallen on hard times. One might reasonably have thought that the PFA, with all its riches, was the body that ought to be doing that.

Anyway despite the management services company going belly up, Xpro remains a registered charity. Successful? Not according to Charity Commission records. They show that Xpro Life after Sport has never, in its history, raised as much as £10,000 in any financial year.

399 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 11:11

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

Eh???

The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.

But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?

Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?

Rolling Eyes

I have to say, Sluffy, that when the laughably named Sports Shield consortium (two recently formed companies with a combined share capital of £2) took over BWFC I feared the worst. Like everyone else, I had seen photos of individuals with checkered histories showing up in the directors box, seemingly as guests of Dean Holdsworth. Ken Anderson also had history which some were more than keen to publicise.

My enquiries into Holdsworth indicated nothing to suggest that he had any money to spare or any experience that would justify him being appointed CEO of the Burnden Leisure group on a starting salary of £250K.

The first of three Sports Shield companies formed by Dean Holdsworth was Sports Shield Ltd incorporated in January 2015. On 5 April 2016 notice was given of the intention to strike the company off for failure to file accounts. The company then gave notice to extend its first accounting date to 31 March 2016 and filed these accounts on 29 December 2016. i.e. just two days before the extended filing deadline. The company accounts showed that it had £118,686 cash at the bank but where had this money come from? 

Holdsworth had been employed by a company called Xpro Management Services Ltd which went into liquidation in October 2015 with scarcely any assets and an estimated deficiency of £87K. What little the liquidator managed to collect all went in fees with nothing for the creditors.

I'm not implying that there was any wrongdoing in any of this but it does not suggest the kind of background or experience needed to run a group of companies with 260 employees and an annual turnover of £30million.

The Xpro set up is interesting in another respect in that its purpose seemed to have been to help retired footballers who had fallen on hard times. One might reasonably have thought that the PFA, with all its riches, was the body that ought to be doing that.

Anyway despite the management services company going belly up, Xpro remains a registered charity. Successful? Not according to Charity Commission records. They show that Xpro Life after Sport has never, in its history, raised as much as £10,000 in any financial year.
See post 389

400 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 12:58

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

Eh???

The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.

But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?

Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?

Rolling Eyes

I have to say, Sluffy, that when the laughably named Sports Shield consortium (two recently formed companies with a combined share capital of £2) took over BWFC I feared the worst. Like everyone else, I had seen photos of individuals with checkered histories showing up in the directors box, seemingly as guests of Dean Holdsworth. Ken Anderson also had history which some were more than keen to publicise.

My enquiries into Holdsworth indicated nothing to suggest that he had any money to spare or any experience that would justify him being appointed CEO of the Burnden Leisure group on a starting salary of £250K.

The first of three Sports Shield companies formed by Dean Holdsworth was Sports Shield Ltd incorporated in January 2015. On 5 April 2016 notice was given of the intention to strike the company off for failure to file accounts. The company then gave notice to extend its first accounting date to 31 March 2016 and filed these accounts on 29 December 2016. i.e. just two days before the extended filing deadline. The company accounts showed that it had £118,686 cash at the bank but where had this money come from? 

Holdsworth had been employed by a company called Xpro Management Services Ltd which went into liquidation in October 2015 with scarcely any assets and an estimated deficiency of £87K. What little the liquidator managed to collect all went in fees with nothing for the creditors.

I'm not implying that there was any wrongdoing in any of this but it does not suggest the kind of background or experience needed to run a group of companies with 260 employees and an annual turnover of £30million.

The Xpro set up is interesting in another respect in that its purpose seemed to have been to help retired footballers who had fallen on hard times. One might reasonably have thought that the PFA, with all its riches, was the body that ought to be doing that.

Anyway despite the management services company going belly up, Xpro remains a registered charity. Successful? Not according to Charity Commission records. They show that Xpro Life after Sport has never, in its history, raised as much as £10,000 in any financial year.
See post 389
I expect the EFL has approved more than a few owners and directors with histories but it has been Ken Anderson's determination and skill that has been largely responsible for the club getting through the last two seasons without going bust. Whether he will succeed in finding the new money the club needs remains to be seen. If he doesn't, I doubt it will be for want of effort on his part.

Incidentally HMRC has open 'inquiries' into 171 football players, 44 clubs and 33 agents. They haven't been named but I know of nothing to suggest that BWFC is one of the clubs.

401 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 13:03

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I wish you lot had spent as much time learning how to quote properly as you do boring folk to death.

402 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 16:32

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
It’s incredible how much irrelevant waffle, personal abuse and wild speculation it takes to try to bury the FACT that Anderson is a proven liar and asset stripper.

Why are these idiots even discussing anything else whilst the bastard has control of our club?

Especially the statements of a proven liar. What is there to discuss?

403 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 20:26

observer


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It’s incredible how much irrelevant waffle, personal abuse and wild speculation it takes to try to bury the FACT that Anderson is a proven liar and asset stripper.

Why are these idiots even discussing anything else whilst the bastard has control of our club?

Especially the statements of a proven liar. What is there to discuss?
We might be persuaded to swap him for Donald Trump!

404 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 21:45

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It’s incredible how much irrelevant waffle, personal abuse and wild speculation it takes to try to bury the FACT that Anderson is a proven liar and asset stripper.

Why are these idiots even discussing anything else whilst the bastard has control of our club?

Especially the statements of a proven liar. What is there to discuss?

We could discuss the completely contradictory statements made by Dean Holdsworth in the accounts of Burnden Leisure Ltd with the statements he made in the accounts of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd.

We could discuss the amounts paid to Dean Holdsworth and his advisors and we could discuss the failure of the Bolton News and the Supporters Trust to  address  any of these issues.

Alternatively we could discuss what Jesse (Lingard) is mostly wearing this week. Whatever floats your boat!



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Tue Dec 04 2018, 08:04; edited 1 time in total

405 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 21:55

Growler


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
It seems some people prefer to talk about the Supporters Trust and Dean Holdsworth than why Ken can't run a business competently enough to organise payment of the wages on time.
Was is because Saint Eddie left the club in an awful state or has Ken screwed it up?

406 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Mon Dec 03 2018, 22:35

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It seems some people prefer to talk about the Supporters Trust and Dean Holdsworth than why Ken can't run a business competently enough to organise payment of the wages on time.
Was is because Saint Eddie left the club in an awful state or has Ken screwed it up?
I don't wish to be rude, Growler, but have you have ever run so much as a cake stand?

407 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Tue Dec 04 2018, 08:05

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It seems some people prefer to talk about the Supporters Trust and Dean Holdsworth than why Ken can't run a business competently enough to organise payment of the wages on time.
Was is because Saint Eddie left the club in an awful state or has Ken screwed it up?
I don't wish to be rude, Growler, but have you have ever run so much as a cake stall?

408 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Tue Dec 04 2018, 11:39

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Fuck me learn to quote. Jesus Christ it's not hard you tedious bastards

409 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Tue Dec 04 2018, 11:59

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Fuck me learn to quote. Jesus Christ it's not hard you tedious bastards

If you look at the times of the quotes above you will note that the last post as been done deliberately as reminder that Growler had yet to respond.

It is not a quoting error.

410 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Tue Dec 04 2018, 12:43

Growler


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Fuck me learn to quote. Jesus Christ it's not hard you tedious bastards

If you look at the times of the quotes above you will note that the last post as been done deliberately as reminder that Growler had yet to respond.

It is not a quoting error.
Oh right, i hadn't notice the timings
I generally don't reply to personal crap.We care about whats happening at BWFC not how us fans make their money.
Preston, Burnley, Blackburn the 3 other North West clubs of similar size to Bolton, they all attract owners who can organise the business side competently enough to pay the bills on time, why can't Bolton attract similar?

411 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Tue Dec 04 2018, 13:06

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Fuck me learn to quote. Jesus Christ it's not hard you tedious bastards

If you look at the times of the quotes above you will note that the last post as been done deliberately as reminder that Growler had yet to respond.

It is not a quoting error.
Oh right, i hadn't notice the timings
I generally don't reply to personal crap.We care about whats happening at BWFC not how us fans make their money.
Preston, Burnley, Blackburn the 3 other North West clubs of similar size to Bolton, they all attract owners who can organise the business side competently enough to pay the bills on time, why can't Bolton attract similar?

I don't suppose the owners of many clubs let alone Preston, Burnley and Blackburn started ownership having to find an immediate commitment of £5 million from one of the owners to keep going to the end of that season - only for the other owner to find out he never had it!

Anderson has been on the backfoot ever since day one.

Ten Bobs question above, although somewhat personnel does contain a key point which is that there is a huge difference in perception and understanding of how companies work from actually being an employee in one and those having the job of keeping them solvent.

If running a business was so easy with guaranteed profit and without risk - we'd all be doing it.

Fair play to Anderson no matter what anybody thinks of him in getting us so far on clearly insufficient funds, insufficient buyers to buy the club from us (including this imaginary bloke with £3 BILLION pounds in his back pocket), and continual - and increasingly growing - hatred of him from the many nutjobs out there, many of whom probably don't know what's involved in running a bath let alone a multimillion pound football club.

412 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Tue Dec 04 2018, 14:26

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It’s incredible how much irrelevant waffle, personal abuse and wild speculation it takes to try to bury the FACT that Anderson is a proven liar and asset stripper.

Why are these idiots even discussing anything else whilst the bastard has control of our club?

Especially the statements of a proven liar. What is there to discuss?

We could discuss the completely contradictory statements made by Dean Holdsworth in the accounts of Burnden Leisure Ltd with the statements he made in the accounts of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd.

We could discuss the amounts paid to Dean Holdsworth and his advisors and we could discuss the failure of the Bolton News and the Supporters Trust to  address  any of these issues.

Alternatively we could discuss what Jesse (Lingard) is mostly wearing this week. Whatever floats your boat!
You could discuss those things but they wouldn’t change the facts about Anderson which is the only relevant topic given that he is the majority shareholder in the club whereas Deano, ED, the ST and Jesse Lingard aren’t.

And this is the Anderson propaganda thread.

413 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Wed Dec 05 2018, 12:17

Nigelbwfc


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It’s incredible how much irrelevant waffle, personal abuse and wild speculation it takes to try to bury the FACT that Anderson is a proven liar and asset stripper.

Why are these idiots even discussing anything else whilst the bastard has control of our club?

Especially the statements of a proven liar. What is there to discuss?
What has Ken Anderson asset stripped. Each time people make this accusation and each time we find those "stripped assets" were stripped from the club before Anderson arrived, or the training ground (both) the car park, the hotel. All were sold under Trevor Birch. 

Other than the players that have had to leave because we couldn't afford their wages, I'm not sure what he's done wrong on that front - and those players were hardly "assets".

414 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Wed Dec 05 2018, 12:26

Nigelbwfc


David Lee
David Lee
The question I would put to Sluffy is, if he's got all the rich trapping s in Switzerland, etc surely it might be worth his while to write some of the debt off, so as to make the club more attractive to sell?

Is it £2 million the club owes to James and Warburton. Pay one of those off and the club becomes more attractive to purchase.

415 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Wed Dec 05 2018, 13:12

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:The question I would put to Sluffy is, if he's got all the rich trapping s in Switzerland, etc surely it might be worth his while to write some of the debt off, so as to make the club more attractive to sell?

Is it £2 million the club owes to James and Warburton. Pay one of those off and the club becomes more attractive to purchase.

I appreciate you thinking I'm worthy enough to pontificate on what Mr Anderson should and should not be doing but my opinions are only as valid as anyone else's.

However to have a stab at answering it, I would think the old saying of 'something is worth what someone else will pay for it' is key here.

IF KA really wants to walk away from a sale with £5 million profit and there are allegedly £20 million of current debt, then he will want to receive £25 million for the club - agreed?

So lets say he pays down £2 million of that debt from his own pocket - he will still be looking for his £5 million profit, he still has £18 million of debt but he will also want to recover his £2 million back (otherwise what is the point as he could equally just dropped his asking price by £2 million and just looked for £3m profit and not £5m) - so his asking price is still £25 million.

In fact KA could pay off all the debt to leave the club debt free but he would still want £25 million to make his required £5 million profit - yes?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is the no prospective buyer values the club currently at £25 million and that is why it isn't selling.

Up to KA then if he wants a quick sale and lowers his expectations of the profit he wants to turn for himself, or weather the financial waters he seems to be in and stick things out until someone does want to meet his asking price.

One important factor to consider of course is KA's ability to sit out the financial storm that as been whipped up by Iles and the ST in the last few weeks.

Despite all their shit stirring we still have no idea of KA's financial ability or commitment.  We have only heard one side of the story (based largely on conjecture, speculation and 'what if's') and not Anderson's side.

As I commented yesterday over on Wanderers Ways, it does seem to me like Iles and the ST smell blood and have launched a coordinated attack on KA in the last week - and Iles two articles and the ST's newest letter made public today.

Seems they are both hand in hand with each other to me in a growing attempt to stir up a lynch mob mentality - and up to now they are succeeding!

I still think KA has a few more cards to play yet though.

416 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Wed Dec 05 2018, 13:26

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy people being concerned at the current direction of the club and the ever increasing financial issues are not a lynch mob. They are fans like me deeply concerned about what the future holds for our club and why shouldn't we have the right to question KA?

417 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Wed Dec 05 2018, 13:31

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Sluffy people being concerned at the current direction of the club and the ever increasing financial issues are not a lynch mob. They are fans like me deeply concerned about what the future holds for our club and why shouldn't we have the right to question KA?

I'm talking about the hysteria on social media and in the comments section of the Bolton News, not reasonable people like yourself.

418 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Wed Dec 05 2018, 13:33

MartinBWFC

avatar
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
The way things look right now is a major worry for fans, and all Iles is doing is to try to get clarification as to where the club stands, IMO it looks like administration is Anderson's only get out, and he stands to lose any profits he had hoped to gain, it's clear he's fallen into a financial hole which is far too deep to climb out of, if as has been published he wants £25/30m for the club he should understand nobodies going to pay anywhere near that for a broken product.

419 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Wed Dec 05 2018, 13:40

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
People get hysterical because they love BWFC though Sluffy, it is that important in some peoples lives.  KA has been lauded in the past for being open with the fans but that seems to have changed recently and i guess he will stay away from games for the next few weeks due to the rising anger.

I have no issues with him being at the club for now and he deserves credit for saving us, but he seems to be making it very difficult for prospective buyers. I mentioned in another thread that surely not every potential buyer is a fraud and has no money so there must be another reason why he is dragging his feet. I have no problem with him making some money from a sale but is he being greedy?

420 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Wed Dec 05 2018, 14:11

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:People get hysterical because they love BWFC though Sluffy, it is that important in some peoples lives.  KA has been lauded in the past for being open with the fans but that seems to have changed recently and i guess he will stay away from games for the next few weeks due to the rising anger.

I have no issues with him being at the club for now and he deserves credit for saving us, but he seems to be making it very difficult for prospective buyers. I mentioned in another thread that surely not every potential buyer is a fraud and has no money so there must be another reason why he is dragging his feet. I have no problem with him making some money from a sale but is he being greedy?

There's two sides to every story mate and quite honestly if Iles hadn't have whipped up a shit storm in the last week no one would be getting hysterical at all would they?

The FACTS seem to be that the players wages (not the admin staff) are being paid a few days late, seemingly because of a cash flow problem - we only had one home game this month until the Wigan game, and the money from this last game and a scheduled receipt of ST sales which came through this week will sort that out.

This month there are a number of home games so one would think we will be ok now until the end of January at least.

As for KA making it difficult for prospective buyers what actual proof do we know about that?  As far as I can make out no one anywhere has said 'I tried to buy the club' let alone that Anderson made it difficult for them - it is all just gossip and rumour - from such people like Wanderlust who claim that someone with £3.2 BILLION couldn't come to an agreement with someone wanting a £5 million profit net of leaving the club debt free.  It just doesn't make any sense does it - it's just made up bollocks - nobody knows if anyone has seriously tried to buy the club.  Maybe all Anderson has done is make out people are interested in order to attract real fish to bite?

Until I see some facts I refuse to join in with the hysteria that is led by Iles and the ST the clearly have an agenda against Anderson owning the club.



Last edited by Sluffy on Wed Dec 05 2018, 14:58; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : spelling and grammar errors)

Back to top  Message [Page 14 of 22]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 18 ... 22  Next

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