Administration and beyond!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:Sluffy I think your final three paragraphs are the best summary of what is really going on that I have seen. People with no interest in football only put money into a club if they think they can profit from it.

Thanks but it's probably more accurate to call my little musings as surmises rather than summary, as I've no idea how true or accurate they really are.

Seems Wways ownership obviously didn't like my conjecture on the subject though as I seemed to have been banned from there without any warning a couple of weeks back.  

C'est la vie.

It does seem to me though that football alone is not the primary reason that Sharon and Mr Luckock, et al, are seemingly willing to risk millions of their wealth to save little old Bolton Wanderers.

All will be revealed in the fullness of time no doubt, whilst our esteemed journalist bothers himself with constantly promoting his own utterly dreadful podcasts rather than enquires into how the club proposes to fund itself (whilst still making a trading loss) for the forseeable future.

I got banned too, about the same time. I think it was because Wways mods prefer folk who've never quite grown out of their spotty-faced, potty-mouthed adolescence.

Some of them keep taking a sneaky look on the 'Who paid for the building of the Reebok' thread.
Getting on for nearly 3,400 views now but they are all too frit to make any intelligent comment for fear of being banished like the two of us.

To be fair to Wways and its readership, it is the biggest BWFC forum around, and in the age of social media where individual centric communication (Twitter, WhatsApp, and whatever else there is) now dominates over group talk such as Facebook and forums, then I don't think that is ever going to change.  

So it's really a bit of a Hobson's choice for those still preferring to visit a place where some form of debate can be read.  Whatever its shortcomings are it is the busiest site and thus more likely to carry the latest news of the club we all support.

Unfortunately though the majority of the regular posters on there seem to have long associations with each other and tend to think and act alike - birds of a feather comes to mind.

If you like their 'ways' then all well and good but if you don't, then I suggest that most people visiting the site look beyond the abuse to find the few gems that are on there to read.

It's no coincidence that the most popular thread ever on there was the protracted sale of the club and the star of the thread was 'Howard'.

Most of the people who followed the thread as well as the likes of Iles and Nixon had little to no knowledge of Accountancy, Mergers and Acquisitions, Insolvency, Administration, Company Law, etc, etc, etc, and had no idea what was going on and believed the likes of Howard, Iles, Nixon implicitly - even though one or two of us knew not all that was being told to us was factual.

Seems however that even though a few of us tried to make sense of what was going on based on the facts we could gleam and pass this on to everyone else, that the 'local community for local people' preferred to deride and abuse us than consider a different narrative than that was being fed to us - misguidedly or not!

Ok, it probably is not very interesting and quite difficult to follow some/much of the stuff we were trying to explain, for many people but I'm sure some people did appreciate that some of us were trying to lift the curtain up as to what was more likely happening than what was generally believed to be the case.

At the end of the day it is just a forum, people act and behave on it as they want/are allowed to be.  Clearly some of us aren't birds of a particular feather and thus have been culled.

I've not lost any sleep over it and certainly don't miss the threats and abuse for simply trying to explain to those who might be interested in what I understood, based on my years of relevant professional experience and qualifications, was happening/likely to be happening.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I like the idea of a smaller ground somewhere in Bolton.

We'd be a lot better off with a smaller stadium with a capacity of 10-12,000.

DaleVince wants a 'sustainable' 5,000 stadium made of wood. Do you think anyone might remind him of how 56 Bradford City supporters lost their lives in the Valley Parade fire?

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:Sluffy I think your final three paragraphs are the best summary of what is really going on that I have seen. People with no interest in football only put money into a club if they think they can profit from it.

Thanks but it's probably more accurate to call my little musings as surmises rather than summary, as I've no idea how true or accurate they really are.

Seems Wways ownership obviously didn't like my conjecture on the subject though as I seemed to have been banned from there without any warning a couple of weeks back.  

C'est la vie.

It does seem to me though that football alone is not the primary reason that Sharon and Mr Luckock, et al, are seemingly willing to risk millions of their wealth to save little old Bolton Wanderers.

All will be revealed in the fullness of time no doubt, whilst our esteemed journalist bothers himself with constantly promoting his own utterly dreadful podcasts rather than enquires into how the club proposes to fund itself (whilst still making a trading loss) for the forseeable future.

I got banned too, about the same time. I think it was because Wways mods prefer folk who've never quite grown out of their spotty-faced, potty-mouthed adolescence.

Some of them keep taking a sneaky look on the 'Who paid for the building of the Reebok' thread.
Getting on for nearly 3,400 views now but they are all too frit to make any intelligent comment for fear of being banished like the two of us.

To be fair to Wways and its readership, it is the biggest BWFC forum around, and in the age of social media where individual centric communication (Twitter, WhatsApp, and whatever else there is) now dominates over group talk such as Facebook and forums, then I don't think that is ever going to change.  

So it's really a bit of a Hobson's choice for those still preferring to visit a place where some form of debate can be read.  Whatever its shortcomings are it is the busiest site and thus more likely to carry the latest news of the club we all support.

Unfortunately though the majority of the regular posters on there seem to have long associations with each other and tend to think and act alike - birds of a feather comes to mind.

If you like their 'ways' then all well and good but if you don't, then I suggest that most people visiting the site look beyond the abuse to find the few gems that are on there to read.

It's no coincidence that the most popular thread ever on there was the protracted sale of the club and the star of the thread was 'Howard'.

Most of the people who followed the thread as well as the likes of Iles and Nixon had little to no knowledge of Accountancy, Mergers and Acquisitions, Insolvency, Administration, Company Law, etc, etc, etc, and had no idea what was going on and believed the likes of Howard, Iles, Nixon implicitly - even though one or two of us knew not all that was being told to us was factual.

Seems however that even though a few of us tried to make sense of what was going on based on the facts we could gleam and pass this on to everyone else, that the 'local community for local people' preferred to deride and abuse us than consider a different narrative than that was being fed to us - misguidedly or not!

Ok, it probably is not very interesting and quite difficult to follow some/much of the stuff we were trying to explain, for many people but I'm sure some people did appreciate that some of us were trying to lift the curtain up as to what was more likely happening than what was generally believed to be the case.

At the end of the day it is just a forum, people act and behave on it as they want/are allowed to be.  Clearly some of us aren't birds of a particular feather and thus have been culled.

I've not lost any sleep over it and certainly don't miss the threats and abuse for simply trying to explain to those who might be interested in what I understood, based on my years of relevant professional experience and qualifications, was happening/likely to be happening.

To be fair to WW, they just behave like schoolyard bullies followed by a flock most of whom seem to have as much capacity to think for themselves as the average sheep. Then there's the Bolton News.
Actually Howard was one of the more interesting contributors on WW even if he/she had an axe to grind and was a tad on the unprofessional side.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:To be fair to WW, they just behave like schoolyard bullies followed by a flock most of whom seem to have as much capacity to think for themselves as the average sheep. Then there's the Bolton News.
Actually Howard was one of the more interesting contributors on WW even if he/she had an axe to grind and was a tad on the unprofessional side.

Yes I think that's fair comment.

It's always been the way that people tend to want to 'belong' and most are content to follow than to lead.

'Norms' and 'conformity' are established by those that become the leaders of groups, mostly from being 'stronger' than the others, either physically, manipulatively or intellectually in some way or other.

It seems that Wways has its roots in the old 'boot boys' of the early seventies continuing into the eighties and called themselves the unimaginative 'Ant Hill Mob' presumably from the children's cartoon TV programme Wackey Races?

Accordingly group dynamics formed around macho aggressiveness, which even after all these years manifests itself in abuse and confrontation on the forum, particularly to those who they identify as not being one of their ilk.

The same sort of behaviour is mirrored in this social media generation where people still want to 'belong', 'follow' and behave in such a manner that engenders themselves to those who they wish to associate themselves with - even though they often know nothing about them than their internet 'persona' that may or may not even be genuine!

I've lived through the years of 'aggro' quite successfully without succumbing to feel the need to prove myself to anyone to be part of the 'gang' and similarly I don't see any benefit in being a keyboard warrior on the internet to 'prove' myself to anyone.

I was taught that I was born with a brain in my head and to use it and also to treat people with the same respect as I would wish to be treated by them.  

Those two lessons alone have served me well over the years.

If people want to follow with out thinking, abuse without caring - then more fool them.

I rather be a decent man in real life than be concerned in the slightest how I'm viewed by people on social media who don't know me - and never will.

I'm not in the slightest bothered than I'm not considered to be wanted in the Wways 'brotherhood' and not stupid enough to rely blindly on Iles reports and tweets as to what is actually going on at the club.

Howard was an entertaining internet character - no more no less - he/she was informative and gave an interesting and at times enlightening narrative - at a crucial time in our clubs history.  

I thank them for it.

I didn't believe every thing that was said but then again I don't believe everything I'm told down the pub either.

At the end of the day football is only a game.

I've lost no sleep over being banned, am constantly amazed that anyone thinks Iles is any good at his job and enjoyed as a bit of internet theatre Howards interlude.

If others feel differently then good for them.

It's not real life.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:To be fair to WW, they just behave like schoolyard bullies followed by a flock most of whom seem to have as much capacity to think for themselves as the average sheep. Then there's the Bolton News.
Actually Howard was one of the more interesting contributors on WW even if he/she had an axe to grind and was a tad on the unprofessional side.

Yes I think that's fair comment.

It's always been the way that people tend to want to 'belong' and most are content to follow than to lead.

'Norms' and 'conformity' are established by those that become the leaders of groups, mostly from being 'stronger' than the others, either physically, manipulatively or intellectually in some way or other.

It seems that Wways has its roots in the old 'boot boys' of the early seventies continuing into the eighties and called themselves the unimaginative 'Ant Hill Mob' presumably from the children's cartoon TV programme Wackey Races?

Accordingly group dynamics formed around macho aggressiveness, which even after all these years manifests itself in abuse and confrontation on the forum, particularly to those who they identify as not being one of their ilk.

The same sort of behaviour is mirrored in this social media generation where people still want to 'belong', 'follow' and behave in such a manner that engenders themselves to those who they wish to associate themselves with - even though they often know nothing about them than their internet 'persona' that may or may not even be genuine!

I've lived through the years of 'aggro' quite successfully without succumbing to feel the need to prove myself to anyone to be part of the 'gang' and similarly I don't see any benefit in being a keyboard warrior on the internet to 'prove' myself to anyone.

I was taught that I was born with a brain in my head and to use it and also to treat people with the same respect as I would wish to be treated by them.  

Those two lessons alone have served me well over the years.

If people want to follow with out thinking, abuse without caring - then more fool them.

I rather be a decent man in real life than be concerned in the slightest how I'm viewed by people on social media who don't know me - and never will.

I'm not in the slightest bothered than I'm not considered to be wanted in the Wways 'brotherhood' and not stupid enough to rely blindly on Iles reports and tweets as to what is actually going on at the club.

Howard was an entertaining internet character - no more no less - he/she was informative and gave an interesting and at times enlightening narrative - at a crucial time in our clubs history.  

I thank them for it.

I didn't believe every thing that was said but then again I don't believe everything I'm told down the pub either.

At the end of the day football is only a game.

I've lost no sleep over being banned, am constantly amazed that anyone thinks Iles is any good at his job and enjoyed as a bit of internet theatre Howards interlude.

If others feel differently then good for them.

It's not real life.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Spot on, Sluffy, its a fantasy world and an escape from real life.

I really don't know what FV's plans are but it was noticeable that Emma B, at the recent Lancaster Whites meeting, emphasised the lack of maintenance on the Reebok whilst appearing less enthusiastic about comments concerning the quality of the stadium and infastructure. Its easy to overthink and overreact but there was a distinct, albeit brief, chink in the veneer when she was asked who paid for the Reebok stadium.

She didn't know and neither did Keith Hill.

Merry Christmas to you, your family and everyone at Nuts

P.S. Mrs Bobsworth thinks that Unibol sounds like disinfectant you put down the khazi so I'm sticking with the Reebok.

Unibol does sound like toilet disinfection!  

Hope you and your family enjoyed Christmas day (and fingers crossed our result today - currently nil all).

The latest on the Admin bill as per your reference on another thread earlier on -

Bolton say they are working with administrators to resolve debts

WANDERERS say they hope to resolve a payment owed to administrators David Rubin and Partners by the end of the year.
Fees have not yet been settled for the process, which began in mid-May, with a six-month report revealing earlier this month that around £1.2million will eventually be paid out to administrators and their advisors.
Reports claiming that the debt could signal wider issues have been firmly played down.
The Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company remains in administration, although all key assets including the ‘golden share’ which ensured membership of the EFL have been transferred to Football Ventures Whites Limited.

“It is widely known that the takeover of the club was protracted and that there were a number of complications right up until completion,” a club statement read.

“David Rubin and Partners worked under difficult circumstances and were ultimately instrumental in the survival of the football club.

“FVWL and the joint administrators are working together to finalise the administration process and remain in discussions regarding the associated fees which we hope will be resolved this year."

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

Sluffy wrote:Unibol does sound like toilet disinfection!  

Hope you and your family enjoyed Christmas day (and fingers crossed our result today - currently nil all).

The latest on the Admin bill as per your reference on another thread earlier on -

Bolton say they are working with administrators to resolve debts

WANDERERS say they hope to resolve a payment owed to administrators David Rubin and Partners by the end of the year.
Fees have not yet been settled for the process, which began in mid-May, with a six-month report revealing earlier this month that around £1.2million will eventually be paid out to administrators and their advisors.
Reports claiming that the debt could signal wider issues have been firmly played down.
The Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company remains in administration, although all key assets including the ‘golden share’ which ensured membership of the EFL have been transferred to Football Ventures Whites Limited.

“It is widely known that the takeover of the club was protracted and that there were a number of complications right up until completion,” a club statement read.

“David Rubin and Partners worked under difficult circumstances and were ultimately instrumental in the survival of the football club.

“FVWL and the joint administrators are working together to finalise the administration process and remain in discussions regarding the associated fees which we hope will be resolved this year."

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

Worked really hard for their £1.2m, did they? Go on I'll believe them.
I wonder if their task would have been easier if they'd made a better job of the statement of affairs.

Meanwhile over on WW, the love-in with Sharon and Emma shows no sign of abating whilst the view count on 'who funded the Reebok' continues to rise.

No more comments though. You could be forgiven for thinking it was a State secret affecting national security.

Apparently there is a ten year plan!

For anyone who wants to listen to Hills utter claptrap about it click on about 3 minutes into the interview.

Even the interviewer didn't even bother with a follow up question about it!

Anyway -

Sluffy wrote:Apparently there is a ten year plan!

For anyone who wants to listen to Hills utter claptrap about it click on about 3 minutes into the interview.

Even the interviewer didn't even bother with a follow up question about it!

Anyway -

TBF from this position a 10 year plan is needed if we're ever going to get back to the top table.
I might not still be around to see it come to fruition, but I understand the need for it.
Thanks Ken.

Sluffy wrote:Apparently there is a ten year plan!

For anyone who wants to listen to Hills utter claptrap about it click on about 3 minutes into the interview.

Even the interviewer didn't even bother with a follow up question about it!

Anyway -

Layering on Bullshit factor 50, if you ask me. Don't just watch the lips, follow the eyes. Its always a dead giveaway.

I expect the 'consortium' have some sort of objective in mind but what's the risk? Most of their 'investment' seems to be secured on assets paid for by Eddie, or to put it another way, Sue Davies.

Meanwhile another c.150 views on WW 'who paid for the Reebok' but NO COMMENTS since WW decided that you and I were persona non grata.

Having looked again at the FV file, I think that there are six shareholders not five. None of them own as much 25% of the total shares issued.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Layering on Bullshit factor 50, if you ask me. Don't just watch the lips, follow the eyes. Its always a dead giveaway.

I expect the 'consortium' have some sort of objective in mind but what's the risk? Most of their 'investment' seems to be secured on assets paid for by Eddie, or to put it another way, Sue Davies.

Meanwhile another c.150 views on WW 'who paid for the Reebok' but NO COMMENTS since WW decided that you and I were persona non grata.

Having looked again at the FV file, I think that there are six shareholders not five. None of them own as much 25% of the total shares issued.

I don't have much time for Hill really as I can't understand what he's trying to achieve on or off the pitch and his interviews are just utter drivel to me, however I'll give him time to prove himself one way or the other yet.

The ten year plan stuff did indeed sound completely made up on the spur of the moment to my ears and my take on that was basically he wants the fans to stay with us for the next seven or eight years because we won't be investing to any extent on players during that period and probably banking that the academy starting now under Hill's reign will bear fruit about then and hence why he's been so critical of the ability of the training of the academy players under Phillips, Lee, etc, that he's inherited.

I also tried to work out when the new shares were 'printed' who our shareholders were which obviously included Sharon and Michael James but then gave it up as a bad job when the penny dropped with me that whoever they are that as long as no one held more than 25% that the shares could be sold multiple times onwards without us knowing who had ownership of them.

I assumed that those who had put money into the purchase and development would have looked to have some control over it in terms of share ownership but as so many various business people seemed to come and go during the period of the purchase and immediately afterwards that it wouldn't have surprised me much if one or two of the lesser known shareholders have since sold their shareholding to someone else and moved on also?

As for the thread on Wways, what I think happens on all forums including Nuts is that old threads are searched from time to time by 'bots' and hence why the viewing total goes up.  So say you or I type into Google a key word say 'Eddie Davies' the Google bot will search the internet and return the post in that thread as one of the 'hits' it found.

Or something like that.

Wway is and always has been a core group of friends and acquaintances from the eighties and as such has a strong bond and culture.  Fair play to them but they have little time or patience for anyone who is 'not one of them' and you and I clearly are not.

I've never been one for staying where I'm not wanted, so I'm not fussed that they don't want me to post on there.  Their loss I view it as because I invariably try to help and inform with my contributions rather than abuse and troll.

Each to their own I guess and probably explains why a passionate but relatively small fan base club like ours can have at least three long established club forums thriving alongside each other rather than to naturally combine under one umbrella forum.

Things aren't ever going to change now though!

Peter Kenyon's Bolton link is a worry

Peter Kenyon's emergence as an adviser to Bolton Wanderers has sparked fears that the club have more financial problems and may need fresh investment less than five months after being bought by the Football Ventures group.

The former Manchester United and Chelsea chief executive has specialised in finding new investors for clubs in recent years, putting together bids to buy both Newcastle and Sunderland which did not come off.

Bolton's cash-flow issues do not appear to have been completely solved by the Football Ventures takeover.

Following a flurry of free transfers in September, manager Keith Hill has signed only one player this month, while Football Ventures still owe administrator Paul Appleton almost £1million and a football adviser £660,000 for work done last summer.

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

Bolton Wanderers' owners calm over national press speculation

WANDERERS are giving no official comment on speculation in the national press that there could be fresh financial problems at the club.

A report in the Daily Mail this morning claimed the involvement of ex-Chelsea and Manchester United chief executive Peter Kenyon had “sparked fears” that the club’s owners, Football Ventures, require new investment.

Kenyon’s involvement as an advisor is understood to be part of a revamped approach on recruitment to be rolled out over several months, which will also include the creation of a new post akin to a director of football.

No comment was made by Football Ventures this morning, which is in line with their ambition to avoid the media circus that often accompanied their predecessor. The mood at the club was calm, however, with no evidence of financial issues creeping into day-to-day life.

Since the group took over five months ago there has been significant investment in the stadium infrastructure, nine deadline day signings and another four new players for Keith Hill this month – with at least one more expected before Tuesday’s game against Bristol Rovers.

The report stated that £1million is still owed to administrator, Paul Appleton, and £600,000 to a football advisor, believed to be Keith Cousins, since the takeover was completed.

Football Ventures’ last statement, released before Christmas, said they were working to reach an agreement with David Rubin and Partners, who oversaw the administration process from May to August.

“It is widely known that the takeover of the club was protracted and that there were a number of complications right up until completion,” the statement read.

“David Rubin and Partners worked under difficult circumstances and were ultimately instrumental in the survival of the football club.

“FVWL and the joint administrators are working together to finalise the administration process and remain in discussions regarding the associated fees which we hope will be resolved this year."

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

Seems to be bad news for Bassini also if the newspaper gossip from Matt Hughes the Chief sports writer at the Daily Mail is true about him-

⁦[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]⁩ I’m no expert but this can’t be good for Bassini can it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Heaton White (@WhiteHeaton) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sluffy wrote:Peter Kenyon's Bolton link is a worry

Peter Kenyon's emergence as an adviser to Bolton Wanderers has sparked fears that the club have more financial problems and may need fresh investment less than five months after being bought by the Football Ventures group.

The former Manchester United and Chelsea chief executive has specialised in finding new investors for clubs in recent years, putting together bids to buy both Newcastle and Sunderland which did not come off.

Bolton's cash-flow issues do not appear to have been completely solved by the Football Ventures takeover.

Following a flurry of free transfers in September, manager Keith Hill has signed only one player this month, while Football Ventures still owe administrator Paul Appleton almost £1million and a football adviser £660,000 for work done last summer.

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

Bolton Wanderers' owners calm over national press speculation

WANDERERS are giving no official comment on speculation in the national press that there could be fresh financial problems at the club.

A report in the Daily Mail this morning claimed the involvement of ex-Chelsea and Manchester United chief executive Peter Kenyon had “sparked fears” that the club’s owners, Football Ventures, require new investment.

Kenyon’s involvement as an advisor is understood to be part of a revamped approach on recruitment to be rolled out over several months, which will also include the creation of a new post akin to a director of football.

No comment was made by Football Ventures this morning, which is in line with their ambition to avoid the media circus that often accompanied their predecessor. The mood at the club was calm, however, with no evidence of financial issues creeping into day-to-day life.

Since the group took over five months ago there has been significant investment in the stadium infrastructure, nine deadline day signings and another four new players for Keith Hill this month – with at least one more expected before Tuesday’s game against Bristol Rovers.

The report stated that £1million is still owed to administrator, Paul Appleton, and £600,000 to a football advisor, believed to be Keith Cousins, since the takeover was completed.

Football Ventures’ last statement, released before Christmas, said they were working to reach an agreement with David Rubin and Partners, who oversaw the administration process from May to August.

“It is widely known that the takeover of the club was protracted and that there were a number of complications right up until completion,” the statement read.

“David Rubin and Partners worked under difficult circumstances and were ultimately instrumental in the survival of the football club.

“FVWL and the joint administrators are working together to finalise the administration process and remain in discussions regarding the associated fees which we hope will be resolved this year."

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

Peter Kenyon to advise on recruitment for Leagues 1 or 2? Anyone convinced by that?

Questions being asked about Rubin's charges? There were difficult circumstances were there? So who was it that misstated the debts and for what reason and to what effect?

Anyone going to see BSA tonight? They could ask him how he figured out that the Reebok cost £100m and that BWFC owed £45m when he became manager. Total tosh, just like Iles' claim that Gordon Hargreaves funded the Reebok.

The question who paid for the Reebok has now had nearly 3,600 views on WW but no answers, other than CC.

We got one kid from United and that has Kenyon written all over it. Guy has contacts at Premier League level so there is some logic behind him using them to advise on recruitment at lower league level in terms of loans and selling off the hundreds of players who don't make it in the big clubs.

wanderlust wrote:We got one kid from United and that has Kenyon written all over it. Guy has contacts at Premier League level so there is some logic behind him using them to advise on recruitment at lower league level in terms of loans and selling off the hundreds of players who don't make it in the big clubs.

If you say so. Kenyon's more of a money man if you ask me and I'm not sure he's all that popular at MU.

But here's a bit about PK's alleged plans for Newcastle:

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

Note the comment 'the 65-year-old values employees who already have the club in their blood'.

Here are Kieran Maguire's comments on PK's 46 page brochure:

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

Maguire's had a bit to say about Bolton but he's another that didn't seem to notice that Inner Circle Sports and Media never got that £525K or that Bolton's debts appeared to be shrinking when they were, in fact, growing.

It aint over till its over.....
We still owe money to whatever degree....certainly minimal amounts in the football world. Why these debts were not just paid off with a stroke of a pen only shows that FV don't have real money to piss away.
So consolidate in league two - get the financials done -  build the basics of the team and see where we are this time next year....IMO

terenceanne wrote:It aint over till its over.....
We still owe money to whatever degree....certainly minimal amounts in the football world. Why these debts were not just paid off with a stroke of a pen only shows that FV don't have real money to piss away.
So consolidate in league two - get the financials done -  build the basics of the team and see where we are this time next year....IMO

10th in League Two.

Thought you might appreciate Iles showing off his financial knowledge again!

Depends on how much of the loans they use, how much they invest as equity etc. It's all a bit of a guessing game at the moment.

— Marc Iles (@MarcIles) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 

A lot of it was part of the takeover. Some residual stuff left in - but until accounts, I doubt we'll know exactly what.

— Marc Iles (@MarcIles) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sluffy wrote:Thought you might appreciate Iles showing off his financial knowledge again!

Depends on how much of the loans they use, how much they invest as equity etc. It's all a bit of a guessing game at the moment.

— Marc Iles (@MarcIles) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 

A lot of it was part of the takeover. Some residual stuff left in - but until accounts, I doubt we'll know exactly what.

— Marc Iles (@MarcIles) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Refreshing to see that someone who hasn't seen any current figures or had access to the financial negotiations being honest enough to say he doesn't know what the current position is.