Administration and beyond!

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.

wanderlust wrote: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.

He's had access to the same information and details in the public domain as Bob, myself and you have.

We KNOW he's talking out of his arse and as a self proclaimed 'financial/business advisor' you should too.

He also works for a paper that has a business reporter, how hard would it be for him to seek some help on understanding the basics rather than tweeting his wrong, uninformed replies?

Not very I would think.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote: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.

He's had access to the same information and details in the public domain as Bob, myself and you have.

We KNOW he's talking out of his arse and as a self proclaimed 'financial/business advisor' you should too.

He also works for a paper that has a business reporter, how hard would it be for him to seek some help on understanding the basics rather than tweeting his wrong, uninformed replies?

Not very I would think.

You'll know, Sluffy, that Iles is worse than simply uninformed. He caused a lot of damage with his pot-stirring and I rather doubt that he's learned any lessons.

But don't you think that sportswriters are generally an easily-led, opinionated breed with the attention spans of goldfish? Check out this abbreviated pile of hogwash from The Times Chief Sports Reporter, Martyn Ziegler.

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

At least Ziegler has the excuse that he's not been reporting full-time on BWFC for the last ten years.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
You'll know, Sluffy, that Iles is worse than simply uninformed. He caused a lot of damage with his pot-stirring and I rather doubt that he's learned any lessons.

But don't you think that sportswriters are generally an easily-led, opinionated breed with the attention spans of goldfish? Check out this abbreviated pile of hogwash from The Times Chief Sports Reporter, Martyn Ziegler.

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

At least Ziegler has the excuse that he's not been reporting full-time on BWFC for the last ten years.

Totally agree Bob about Iles but very few people seem to see this, the vast majority think/believe that Iles is alright and we are the crackpots around here.

I/we've said it plenty times about Iles being in the anti-Anderson camp alongside his mates Holdsworth and the ST (who I'm certain led him by the nose about the club's finances) but we are the ones seen by most as ourselves being the ones with the agenda.

As they say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!

Nobody believed us about Anderson - they would have lynched him if they could, they were so rabid at the time - but slowly I think the penny is dropping with some that actually Anderson really doesn't seemed to have done most/all of the stuff they had were TOLD he had (by social media and self claimed financial/business advisors on forums like ours) and maybe some might start thinking if we knew what we were talking about along about Anderson, then maybe we might also know what we are talking about in respect of Iles also!

Not that it matters much, the vast majority still aren't bothered how BWFC as a business is run, even after going through a near death (liquidation) experience just a few months back because it had been running unsustainably for the best part of this century!!!

Most are simply happy talk about what they see on the pitch and trust the likes of Iles and/or social media for everything else.

If Iles is the font of all their knowledge then God help them.

As for the other sports journalists, I can't really comment because I don't follow their work.

I would imagine though that if and when they do, do an article on the club, that one of their first ports of call is the local newspaper football reporter.  If so I think I might have sussed why their reporting is wide of the mark, if so!

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote: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.

He's had access to the same information and details in the public domain as Bob, myself and you have.

We KNOW he's talking out of his arse and as a self proclaimed 'financial/business advisor' you should too.

He also works for a paper that has a business reporter, how hard would it be for him to seek some help on understanding the basics rather than tweeting his wrong, uninformed replies?

Not very I would think.

He avoided answering a straight question which I don't think he could answer without speculating. Personally I appreciate it when journalists don't speculate.
Yes we have some information, but it isn't current, is only partial and excludes anything that may or may not have gone on "behind the scenes" and therefore amounts to the basis of nothing.

If he was an unprincipled journalist he could have speculated and kicked off a shitstorm that would have provided him with column inches for the next six months, but he didn't, so well done that man for handling a sensitive topic professionally.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote: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.

He's had access to the same information and details in the public domain as Bob, myself and you have.

We KNOW he's talking out of his arse and as a self proclaimed 'financial/business advisor' you should too.

He also works for a paper that has a business reporter, how hard would it be for him to seek some help on understanding the basics rather than tweeting his wrong, uninformed replies?

Not very I would think.

He avoided answering a straight question which I don't think he could answer without speculating. Personally I appreciate it when journalists don't speculate.
Yes we have some information, but it isn't current, is only partial and excludes anything that may or may not have gone on "behind the scenes" and therefore amounts to the basis of nothing.

If he was an unprincipled journalist he could have speculated and kicked off a shitstorm that would have provided him with column inches for the next six months, but he didn't, so well done that man for handling a sensitive topic professionally.

As a self proclaimed financial/business advisor you should know that investing your own money into a business as a loan then converting that loan to equity is NOT creating a debt to yourself, ie making you a creditor of the company - in fact it is just the opposite - so Iles was factually wrong in his statement for his first reply. 

In his second answer to the question "have we have paid off most of the debts that were known to be there" the answer is a simple and categoric NO. 

The Administrators reports in the public domain clearly set out the time frame and payments to both the secured and unsecured creditors and FV and Iles would have been shouting from the rooftops if they had settled these debts significantly ahead of time.

I hope your professional indemnity insurance is paid up to date because if you don't know simple stuff like this then I think most of your make believe clients you have been telling us about may soon well be making claims against your 'expert' financial/business advise you've given them!

I suppose I've followed it with interest, Sluffy, partly because, from my earliest memories, I've always had an interest in solving puzzles. If something doesn't quite fit, its invariably because its wrong but knowing its wrong won't do. I need to know what's right especially if its about the football club that I have religiously followed from my chidhood.

I'm sure there are still missing pieces and I always hope that there are folk who can help find them.  I have found very few such individuals, the great majority being either indifferent or hostile; in some cases, extremely hostile to any questioning of allegations against 'the guilty without trial'.

I simply referred to Martyn Ziegler because, even in that brief extract from the article in question, its unmistakeably clear of both its intent and that little or no thought had gone into it. And, of course, it isn't just him, much the same could be said of just about every other article in the nationals about BWFC's financial difficulties dating back to David Conn's article in The Independent in January 2004.

Eddie Davies, as long ago as 2005, thought newspapers 'a necessary evil'. I have no difficulty at all in seeing his point but in the meantime there has been the development of other forms of media that sadly have proved to be every bit as evil.

You are imo correct that it was the ST, Iles and the BN that fostered the lynch mob mentality against Ken Anderson but the anti-Davies disinformation preceded it and I do believe you have to look back to at least 2003 or even 1999 to see when those seeds were sown.

P.S. The view count on 'Who funded the building of the Reebok' has now reached 3,680.
Maybe its dawned on at least one or two of those viewers that Marc Iles is not the most objective or reliable commentator on anything requiring a modicum of financial knowledge.

Meanwhile  Dale Vince still hasn't filed the overdue Ecotricity Group accounts. EG is the big one but he's a director of another 49 companies. I can't be bothered to check how many of those are also in breach of company law but the 'necessary evil' mob don't seem to have cottoned on yet.

The Ecotricity Group accounts have landed. Only 24 days late but better late than never.

They are presently being 'processed'. Like peas and BN readers?

Must make a note to see what they look like after they've been 'processed'.

Directors transactions are usually worth a gander and much more interesting than the stuff you usually find in the media.

Can't help feeling that you're praying for something bad to turn up. Anything less would be a disappointment.

Why does anyone on here care about FGR?

boltonbonce wrote:Can't help feeling that you're praying for something bad to turn up. Anything less would be a disappointment.

There's a reason for the delay, Boncey, and its going to be fun looking for it.

Some folks like listening to the erudite musings of Keith Hill. Others spend all day ferretting around with a metal detector finding nothing more interesting than a tin of Heinz beans c. 2018.

I like finding the little tricks and dodges some folk get up to in the hope nobody notices or occasionally trying to do the Sunday Times general knowledge crossword. Chacun a son gout, as I expect they say in metropolitan Moses Gate