Club Future - Administration or bust?

Sluffy wrote:What have we learned today?

Been a full day of gems to savour.

- I guess we start at the very beginning of the day when Neil 'did he jump or was he pushed' Bonnar tweeted his alcoholic flavoured comments the club was unsellable.  This came as quite a shock to me as I didn't think anybody followed Mr Blue Moon anymore.
- Then the Hoppy510 taught us that the club had £45m more assets than debts when Anderson took it over (We were actually showing a debt of £186m as per the accounts for that time!) Only £231m wide of the mark!
- Followed by Lofthouse's call for 10,000 fans putting £5k of their family savings EACH into the pot to buy the club when we can't even get 10,000 fans at the club with tickets at £5 each.  Brilliant, why had nobody thought of this plan of action before?

Then this evenings ST Meeting, featuring a cast of not one single person of any relevance to do anything much about anything at all really.  (Bit like all the other ST meetings then).

- The Davies family, Moonshift, Micheal James, Bret Warburton, etc, didn't even send a note that they were even bothered with the evenings farce, which was taken badly by the Chair of the ST, Mr Terrance Rigby, Barrister.  I should have thought a clever person such as he obviously must be, would have reflected on why that might be?  Could it possibly be that these key players in the clubs immediate future don't believe the ST to be creditable?  Nah it couldn't possibly be that surely?
- Mr Rigby had however read some documents and give his considered opinion on some of the winders stuff but didn't really sound convincing as to what he was saying was absolutely correct.  I preferred Howards narrative myself, much better story in the opinion of this mill town boy.  When I was a lad the skyline was full of the mill chimneys before Dibner got to work on them - I'm just flagging up how old I am for later on.
- Then we had Roger Allanson (passed presumably as a fit and proper person by the ST before (and after?) his co-option onto the ST board) chatting about meeting Shaun Harvey the CE of the EFL and talking amongst other things of how people pass the EFL's FFP test criteria. 
- Mr Harvey confirms Ken proved to him the money was there to see us financially through to the end of the season but no one seems to have asked the vital question of Ken being, did he intend to be spending it on the club to make sure we did get to the end of the season. School boy error perhaps? (note another hint of ageism there of a younger kind)
- Then a selection of meaningless questions, to folk without the expertise to actually answer them properly, to the dissatisfaction of the people sat there expecting a miracle solution to everything along the lines of let's go into Administration, not sure who will do it though or will pay for it, then we get rid of Ken and the ST will take us on with Mr Allanson's company he's established for that very purpose.  I'm not sure however if Mr A will set up his own FFP tests for people wanting to be a part of it though?  Anyway well done the audience, easy peasy really, makes you wonder why we've not done these things already?
- Then the big news, the old boys (the ST) and the young guns (Will Jones and the rebel rousers, whose biggest hit so far is Once Around the Stadium, plus supporting acts of Burnden Aces and that other tiny site (who have a tennis ball franchise or something like that?) are going to court each other!  Coffin dodgers and Millennials in a marriage of convenience to save our club.  See all the age references now make sense!

Horray, how could we find ourselves in better hands than these!

All problems solved.

Don't forget the ST elections in June.

What a complete and utter waste of a day.

Nigelbwfc wrote:If I might add a few points to that summary.

1) Terence Rigby seem to suggest that admin would cost less than £3 million and even had it down to £750,000 at one point.

Howard on the other had put admin as high as £20 to £30 million in one conversation on wanderers ways.

Take your pick. TR seem to intimate that the supporters trust could some how force administration and seize the club.

2) A 'Nigel' (not me - (my god there's another lol)) said the club earn £15 million a year and asked where the money was going. I thought that was patently obvious - players wages, Paying Amos £16k a week, and a number of others are still on relatively high wages.( Okay Connell won't be on high wages but the rest are) as will admin and general bills. Paul Aldridge needs paying, finance directors don't come cheap and then there's Ken.

I was disappointed that, no one seem to point out or want to point out, that other clubs were struggling, Bury, Oxford, and many others are secretly covering up the fact that owners are constantly dipping into their pockets and that football is actually bust.

Derbys owner wants to sell because he can no longer fund it.

The point is wages have to be restructured. A basic plus bonuses.

There were no suggested ways of earning extra income for the football club, no volunteering and positive approach to help get the club back on its feet.

In short it did more to drive a wedge between Ken / new prospective owner than ever before. They may as well had call Ken to his face.

3) Howard mentioned that his group were thinking of selling the car park, near the Whites hotel off to put yet another Hotel on Middlebrook.

I fail to see what good that would do. There's not enough going on in Bolton to justify another Hotel.


What the club needs is a business strategy / plan on the way forward, once the new owner comes in.

Bassini just seems to me that he'd going to do a smaller Eddie Davies and loan the funds until it gets too much utilising any assets in the club. We've already seen the outcome of that. (Boom and bust).

Sluffy wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:If I might add a few points to that summary.

1) Terence Rigby seem to suggest that admin would cost less than £3 million and even had it down to £750,000 at one point.

Howard on the other had put admin as high as £20 to £30 million in one conversation on wanderers ways.

Take your pick. TR seem to intimate that the supporters trust could some how force administration and seize the club.

2) A 'Nigel' (not me - (my god there's another lol)) said the club earn £15 million a year and asked where the money was going. I thought that was patently obvious - players wages, Paying Amos £16k a week, and a number of others are still on relatively high wages.( Okay Connell won't be on high wages but the rest are) as will admin and general bills. Paul Aldridge needs paying, finance directors don't come cheap and then there's Ken.

I was disappointed that, no one seem to point out or want to point out, that other clubs were struggling, Bury, Oxford, and many others are secretly covering up the fact that owners are constantly dipping into their pockets and that football is actually bust.

Derbys owner wants to sell because he can no longer fund it.

The point is wages have to be restructured. A basic plus bonuses.

There were no suggested ways of earning extra income for the football club, no volunteering and positive approach to help get the club back on its feet.

In short it did more to drive a wedge between Ken / new prospective owner than ever before. They may as well had call Ken to his face.

3) Howard mentioned that his group were thinking of selling the car park, near the Whites hotel off to put yet another Hotel on Middlebrook.

I fail to see what good that would do. There's not enough going on in Bolton to justify another Hotel.


What the club needs is a business strategy / plan on the way forward, once the new owner comes in.

Bassini just seems to me that he'd going to do a smaller Eddie Davies and loan the funds until it gets too much utilising any assets in the club. We've already seen the outcome of that. (Boom and bust).

I'm not Howard - and he did have an agenda for saying some of the stuff he said - but I would just like to clarify some of the things he said (that seemed factual to me - without ever confirming the details for myself).

Rigby stated that he thought Admin would only cost about £750k - but he's talking about ENTERING Admin - ie the cost of running the club in Admin whilst the Administrator is doing his stuff.

Considering the players wages alone is £600k per month currently, then that would only leave £150k to pay the wages of all the other staff and running costs for the club for the remainder of that month - and even if that is financially feasible, then who is paying the next months £750k, whilst we are still in Admin awaiting a buyer, then the month after that, etc until we do?

H reckoned that a budget of around £3m to cover three months Admin was closer to the mark required.

Who would fund it though?

According to Rigby last night only HMRC and Eddie's family could put the club into Admin and the former only needs £1.2m (so why risk £3m to get it - so they won't be doing it) and Davies family don't want to take the club back and fund Admin because the moment they do they are responsible for all of the other clubs debts that again exceed the £8m they are seeking to recover.

H also pointed out that secured creditors such as James and Warburton, plus Anderson as club owner could also put the club into Admin - James and Anderson knows they will get their money back in liquidation - so why would they want to throw another £3m into Admin which wouldn't be returnable - and Anderson would lose control over the club (and a future potential pay off for himself) if he went down that road.

The £25m or so H talked about for Admin was for the club to EXIT Administration, being the need for whoever takes on the club to be able to pay all secured creditors 100% of the monies they are owed and 25% of all unsecured debtors as per the EFL's regulations.

To be honest it really is a very poor show that the ST hasn't seemed to have done the most basic of checks around the process of Administration on the financial requirements to enter and exit the process - for something that has been stirring the club full in the face for the last several weeks at the very least.

I'm extremely surprised that a Barrister, which Rigby is, hasn't had himself fully briefed about such things before putting himself in the public spotlight and discussing such matters in an open forum.  I would have thought with his profession and training that would have been the very least he would do.

As for H's other remarks about the possible land use, reading between the lines the value of the land is to develop it for housing, but as I understand it the land (car park, etc) isn't designated under planning consent for anything other than commercial development.

Maybe H was 'suggesting' the land could be used to 'build' another hotel but wouldn't it be nice if planning permissions were changed to allow domestic use, whilst they were waiting to build the hotel!  I'm not suggesting anything untoward btw, merely that shopping habits have changed in the last 20 years or so and that less commercial land is now needed and more residential development land is.  It seems a reasonable proposition to build domestic housing so close to existing infra structure (road, rail and motorway link) on an out of town shopping area where people actually go less and less to visit.

I like to think I've done Howard justice in putting over his comments, as I have understood them, to answer a couple of your points above.

Norpig wrote:All very depressing reading, looks like administration at least and even liquidation comes into play.

Interesting that the EFL claim that the club has enough money to see out the season yet Kenocchio won't actually release it. Is this linked to the frozen bank account i've heard mentioned or is it just Kenocchio being a dick? (I'm going for the latter)

Nigelbwfc wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:If I might add a few points to that summary.

1) Terence Rigby seem to suggest that admin would cost less than £3 million and even had it down to £750,000 at one point.

Howard on the other had put admin as high as £20 to £30 million in one conversation on wanderers ways.

Take your pick. TR seem to intimate that the supporters trust could some how force administration and seize the club.

2) A 'Nigel' (not me - (my god there's another lol)) said the club earn £15 million a year and asked where the money was going. I thought that was patently obvious - players wages, Paying Amos £16k a week, and a number of others are still on relatively high wages.( Okay Connell won't be on high wages but the rest are) as will admin and general bills. Paul Aldridge needs paying, finance directors don't come cheap and then there's Ken.

I was disappointed that, no one seem to point out or want to point out, that other clubs were struggling, Bury, Oxford, and many others are secretly covering up the fact that owners are constantly dipping into their pockets and that football is actually bust.

Derbys owner wants to sell because he can no longer fund it.

The point is wages have to be restructured. A basic plus bonuses.

There were no suggested ways of earning extra income for the football club, no volunteering and positive approach to help get the club back on its feet.

In short it did more to drive a wedge between Ken / new prospective owner than ever before. They may as well had call Ken to his face.

3) Howard mentioned that his group were thinking of selling the car park, near the Whites hotel off to put yet another Hotel on Middlebrook.

I fail to see what good that would do. There's not enough going on in Bolton to justify another Hotel.


What the club needs is a business strategy / plan on the way forward, once the new owner comes in.

Bassini just seems to me that he'd going to do a smaller Eddie Davies and loan the funds until it gets too much utilising any assets in the club. We've already seen the outcome of that. (Boom and bust).

I'm not Howard - and he did have an agenda for saying some of the stuff he said - but I would just like to clarify some of the things he said (that seemed factual to me - without ever confirming the details for myself).

Rigby stated that he thought Admin would only cost about £750k - but he's talking about ENTERING Admin - ie the cost of running the club in Admin whilst the Administrator is doing his stuff.

Considering the players wages alone is £600k per month currently, then that would only leave £150k to pay the wages of all the other staff and running costs for the club for the remainder of that month - and even if that is financially feasible, then who is paying the next months £750k, whilst we are still in Admin awaiting a buyer, then the month after that, etc until we do?

H reckoned that a budget of around £3m to cover three months Admin was closer to the mark required.

Who would fund it though?

According to Rigby last night only HMRC and Eddie's family could put the club into Admin and the former only needs £1.2m (so why risk £3m to get it - so they won't be doing it) and Davies family don't want to take the club back and fund Admin because the moment they do they are responsible for all of the other clubs debts that again exceed the £8m they are seeking to recover.

H also pointed out that secured creditors such as James and Warburton, plus Anderson as club owner could also put the club into Admin - James and Anderson knows they will get their money back in liquidation - so why would they want to throw another £3m into Admin which wouldn't be returnable - and Anderson would lose control over the club (and a future potential pay off for himself) if he went down that road.

The £25m or so H talked about for Admin was for the club to EXIT Administration, being the need for whoever takes on the club to be able to pay all secured creditors 100% of the monies they are owed and 25% of all unsecured debtors as per the EFL's regulations.

To be honest it really is a very poor show that the ST hasn't seemed to have done the most basic of checks around the process of Administration on the financial requirements to enter and exit the process - for something that has been stirring the club full in the face for the last several weeks at the very least.

I'm extremely surprised that a Barrister, which Rigby is, hasn't had himself fully briefed about such things before putting himself in the public spotlight and discussing such matters in an open forum.  I would have thought with his profession and training that would have been the very least he would do.

As for H's other remarks about the possible land use, reading between the lines the value of the land is to develop it for housing, but as I understand it the land (car park, etc) isn't designated under planning consent for anything other than commercial development.

Maybe H was 'suggesting' the land could be used to 'build' another hotel but wouldn't it be nice if planning permissions were changed to allow domestic use, whilst they were waiting to build the hotel!  I'm not suggesting anything untoward btw, merely that shopping habits have changed in the last 20 years or so and that less commercial land is now needed and more residential development land is.  It seems a reasonable proposition to build domestic housing so close to existing infra structure (road, rail and motorway link) on an out of town shopping area where people actually go less and less to visit.

I like to think I've done Howard justice in putting over his comments, as I have understood them, to answer a couple of your points above.

Will people want to live so close to a stadium with possible hooliganism? Housing would also kill any pop concerts and extra revenue that the club can obtain. No one will want to live next door to a lot of noise. There'll suddenly be increased objection to noise levels.

Howard definitely mentioned the hotel idea and again without events, it's useless.

Selling off land now deals with the short term problems, but it doesn't deal with the long term problems. Mainly the further we sink the less people turn up.

The club needs footfall 7 days a week. There needs to be events on to get people up and visiting when matches are not on. The club needs people spending money at the stadium.

The club also need more ethnic minorities turning up. 

The club is dieing a slow painful death. I can't see Howard's plan working in the long term and we could end up with less assets and nothing to sell off when we go bankrupt again. 

The club has a history of going bust. I don't see Howard's plan as anything more than short termism.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You don’t have to be a dick to break the law. And you don’t need to break the law to be dick.

Give it a rest in your defence of any Anderson criticism, until the accounts come out you don’t know any more than the rest of us and we’re all free to speculate. Particularly given the state of the club his tenure has overseen.

Norpig wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:You don’t have to be a dick to break the law. And you don’t need to break the law to be dick.

Give it a rest in your defence of any Anderson criticism, until the accounts come out you don’t know any more than the rest of us and we’re all free to speculate. Particularly given the state of the club his tenure has overseen.

Sluffy wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:If I might add a few points to that summary.

1) Terence Rigby seem to suggest that admin would cost less than £3 million and even had it down to £750,000 at one point.

Howard on the other had put admin as high as £20 to £30 million in one conversation on wanderers ways.

Take your pick. TR seem to intimate that the supporters trust could some how force administration and seize the club.

2) A 'Nigel' (not me - (my god there's another lol)) said the club earn £15 million a year and asked where the money was going. I thought that was patently obvious - players wages, Paying Amos £16k a week, and a number of others are still on relatively high wages.( Okay Connell won't be on high wages but the rest are) as will admin and general bills. Paul Aldridge needs paying, finance directors don't come cheap and then there's Ken.

I was disappointed that, no one seem to point out or want to point out, that other clubs were struggling, Bury, Oxford, and many others are secretly covering up the fact that owners are constantly dipping into their pockets and that football is actually bust.

Derbys owner wants to sell because he can no longer fund it.

The point is wages have to be restructured. A basic plus bonuses.

There were no suggested ways of earning extra income for the football club, no volunteering and positive approach to help get the club back on its feet.

In short it did more to drive a wedge between Ken / new prospective owner than ever before. They may as well had call Ken to his face.

3) Howard mentioned that his group were thinking of selling the car park, near the Whites hotel off to put yet another Hotel on Middlebrook.

I fail to see what good that would do. There's not enough going on in Bolton to justify another Hotel.


What the club needs is a business strategy / plan on the way forward, once the new owner comes in.

Bassini just seems to me that he'd going to do a smaller Eddie Davies and loan the funds until it gets too much utilising any assets in the club. We've already seen the outcome of that. (Boom and bust).

I'm not Howard - and he did have an agenda for saying some of the stuff he said - but I would just like to clarify some of the things he said (that seemed factual to me - without ever confirming the details for myself).

Rigby stated that he thought Admin would only cost about £750k - but he's talking about ENTERING Admin - ie the cost of running the club in Admin whilst the Administrator is doing his stuff.

Considering the players wages alone is £600k per month currently, then that would only leave £150k to pay the wages of all the other staff and running costs for the club for the remainder of that month - and even if that is financially feasible, then who is paying the next months £750k, whilst we are still in Admin awaiting a buyer, then the month after that, etc until we do?

H reckoned that a budget of around £3m to cover three months Admin was closer to the mark required.

Who would fund it though?

According to Rigby last night only HMRC and Eddie's family could put the club into Admin and the former only needs £1.2m (so why risk £3m to get it - so they won't be doing it) and Davies family don't want to take the club back and fund Admin because the moment they do they are responsible for all of the other clubs debts that again exceed the £8m they are seeking to recover.

H also pointed out that secured creditors such as James and Warburton, plus Anderson as club owner could also put the club into Admin - James and Anderson knows they will get their money back in liquidation - so why would they want to throw another £3m into Admin which wouldn't be returnable - and Anderson would lose control over the club (and a future potential pay off for himself) if he went down that road.

The £25m or so H talked about for Admin was for the club to EXIT Administration, being the need for whoever takes on the club to be able to pay all secured creditors 100% of the monies they are owed and 25% of all unsecured debtors as per the EFL's regulations.

To be honest it really is a very poor show that the ST hasn't seemed to have done the most basic of checks around the process of Administration on the financial requirements to enter and exit the process - for something that has been stirring the club full in the face for the last several weeks at the very least.

I'm extremely surprised that a Barrister, which Rigby is, hasn't had himself fully briefed about such things before putting himself in the public spotlight and discussing such matters in an open forum.  I would have thought with his profession and training that would have been the very least he would do.

As for H's other remarks about the possible land use, reading between the lines the value of the land is to develop it for housing, but as I understand it the land (car park, etc) isn't designated under planning consent for anything other than commercial development.

Maybe H was 'suggesting' the land could be used to 'build' another hotel but wouldn't it be nice if planning permissions were changed to allow domestic use, whilst they were waiting to build the hotel!  I'm not suggesting anything untoward btw, merely that shopping habits have changed in the last 20 years or so and that less commercial land is now needed and more residential development land is.  It seems a reasonable proposition to build domestic housing so close to existing infra structure (road, rail and motorway link) on an out of town shopping area where people actually go less and less to visit.

I like to think I've done Howard justice in putting over his comments, as I have understood them, to answer a couple of your points above.

Will people want to live so close to a stadium with possible hooliganism? Housing would also kill any pop concerts and extra revenue that the club can obtain. No one will want to live next door to a lot of noise. There'll suddenly be increased objection to noise levels.

Howard definitely mentioned the hotel idea and again without events, it's useless.

Selling off land now deals with the short term problems, but it doesn't deal with the long term problems. Mainly the further we sink the less people turn up.

The club needs footfall 7 days a week. There needs to be events on to get people up and visiting when matches are not on. The club needs people spending money at the stadium.

The club also need more ethnic minorities turning up. 

The club is dieing a slow painful death. I can't see Howard's plan working in the long term and we could end up with less assets and nothing to sell off when we go bankrupt again. 

The club has a history of going bust. I don't see Howard's plan as anything more than short termism.

I think you are working on the premise that the people who can afford to buy the club have any long term plans for it.

The land and it's development is worth very much more to businessmen than a potential lower league (non league even) club with around 10,000 fans attending around 30 days a year brining in revenue of around just £3m (as per the clubs latest accounts).

Financially it simply doesn't stack up.

Don't be surprised that in twenty years time or so we won't have a club playing at the UnioBol, and the land and possibly even the stadium redeveloped for residential use.

Maybe a deal could be brokered for a new smaller stadium being built closer to the town as part of the sale of land to a big property developer.

The immediate future looks to be one of a ST type take over of people with limited funds simply trying to save and stabilise the club financially which will mean little/non investment in the team on the pitch and life in the lower divisions - and consequently attracting lower crowds - and the costs of running a largely empty stadium becoming more and more prohibitive.

Either that or liquidation I guess.

boltonbonce wrote:

Norpig wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:You don’t have to be a dick to break the law. And you don’t need to break the law to be dick.

Give it a rest in your defence of any Anderson criticism, until the accounts come out you don’t know any more than the rest of us and we’re all free to speculate. Particularly given the state of the club his tenure has overseen.

Couldn't agree more.

Norpig wrote:You're the one who needs to give their head a good shake Sluffy. You know no more than anyone  else on here but seem to think you do.
We all have our own opinions and last time i checked a forum is the place to air these opinions. We don't come on here to be talked down to and ridiculed by you.

You say you're not a fan of KA but you back him on every decision, one day we will find out the truth behind this whole sorry mess and you may be proved to be right but please stop with mud slinging especially at Lusty.

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:You're the one who needs to give their head a good shake Sluffy. You know no more than anyone  else on here but seem to think you do.
We all have our own opinions and last time i checked a forum is the place to air these opinions. We don't come on here to be talked down to and ridiculed by you.

You say you're not a fan of KA but you back him on every decision, one day we will find out the truth behind this whole sorry mess and you may be proved to be right but please stop with mud slinging especially at Lusty.

No I don't back Anderson on every decision but I guess it looks like I probably do when I'm not joining in with everyone else giving him a good kicking over something that people believe without a shred of actual proof.

I'm actual in the middle ground waiting for the facts and figures to come out to see what as actually gone on, as it happens.

I doubt there is anyone on actually supports Ken and everybody else in the main seems to be set dead against him - so yes I can see why you and others view me like that but the reality is that there is a massive anti-Anderson vibe with most people and if me - and a few more rational others seeking the truth of the matter isn't part of it - then it must be us who are the weirdo's, the extremists, the loonies.

All I've done is to keep Nuts to be free as I can of unsubstantiated bullshit and free from potentially libellous remarks.

Like it or not Wanderlust has been posting his unsubstantiated comments and abuse on Nuts for the best part of three years now - and completely ignored me (and others) who have asked him to back up his comments and insinuations.

Well the wheels came off big time for him yesterday on Wways where he was proved to be spouting bullshit and publicly embarrassed showing that he couldn't even understand basic accounts - even though the details had been put in front of him.

He couldn't even be man enough to put his hand up a accept he'd made a mistake, or got it wrong - how hard would that have been to do?

I don't mind people having opinions and there's nothing bad about getting things wrong from time to time - we all do that - but what I have objected to is three years relentless abuse and bullshit without any facts whatsoever to back his preconceived, prejudiced, and clearly biased rantings against Anderson without anything to back up what he was claiming.

It takes something really special to be £231 million wrong about anything - even when I for one had told him Davies had left debt in the accounts to prevent any asset stripping - but oh no, he knew best.

Well clearly he doesn't and maybe his experience on Wways may make him change his ways for the better.

I doubt it will though.

observer wrote:I gave him the benefit of the doubt until he blatantly lied about paying the salaries out of his pocket... and to find out that was not the truth.