Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers News » ALAN HOUGHTON'S FAN'S VIEW: Things looking up, both on and off the pitch, at Wanderers

ALAN HOUGHTON'S FAN'S VIEW: Things looking up, both on and off the pitch, at Wanderers

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
T’was the last match before Christmas in this pantomime season, for which we assembled on the set of Treasure Island, otherwise known as the Fanzone in the Premier Suite.

Festive preparations were well under way and all we wanted for Christmas was three points against the Shrimpers from Southend.

We hoped that Keith Hill had a cunning plan to outwit Sol Campbell and his first act was to start with Jake Wright and Thibaud Verlinden.

As happens so often, Southend hadn’t read the script and had a plot of their own, coming at us from the first minute.

In this season of goodwill, our defence gifted too many free headers in the box and Harry Lennon put them one up.

For most of the first half, Southend were the better team but we came up with two great strikes from Joe Dodoo and Luke Murphy respectively.

In the second half, Daryl Murphy took advantage of a ‘he’s behind you’ moment to rob Tim Dieng and finish superbly for what turned out to be a welcome, valuable winner.

We never do things the easy way and we gifted another free header to ensure a nail-biting last 10 minutes.

But all’s well that ends well. Southend can count themselves unfortunate, but we have played better and lost.

The EFL seem determined to retain their role as villains by insisting Liverpool play their Carabao Cup quarter-final with their young players and, more worryingly, is their punishment for Macclesfield missing a match in all-too familiar circumstances to what we went through last season.

On a more positive note, it was good to see the work being done off the field to restore our respect and credibility following all the misdeeds leading to the administration. Sharon Brittan and Emma Beaugeard’s visit to Forest Green to sort out the Christian Doidge debacle and repair our damaged reputation can only be seen as a good thing going forward. There must be hundreds of business relationships soured by the events that took us into administration and these all need to be rebuilt.

After the match, it was party time as the club held their first Christmas cracker party in the Premier Suite. It was a good opportunity to meet, talk to and get autographs and selfies with the players, management, Sharon Brittan and Emma Beaugeard.

Now we look forward to our Boxing Day reunion with Phil Parkinson.

Source

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@karlypants wrote:It was a good opportunity to meet, talk to and get autographs and selfies with the players

:facepalm:

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Just a personal view but out of the list of 290 unsecured creditors, there are 289 I'd have preferred settled before Forest Green Rovers. As for the creepy photos, yuck.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Just a personal view but out of the list of 290 unsecured creditors, there are 289 I'd have preferred settled before Forest Green Rovers. As for the creepy photos, yuck.

Totally agree with the creepy pictures (below) but I thought FGR was a 'footballing creditor' and so had to be settled first even though it was an unsecured creditor?

I am a little bit confused though as to its 'classification' however as if it was a footballing creditor then wouldn't that have meant that the agreed settlement would have to have been made before the takeover and not now?

Conversely if it was just a 'normal' unsecured creditor then I thought the EFL rules said that they all had to be treated equally - if so why then a need for this visit and agreed 'settlement'?

Vince certainly knows how to 'milk' the system and has already obtained £36m for himself (or more correctly his company the he wholly owns - and which in turn pays him interest free loans!) when this article was written in Feb 2015.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11413504/The-wind-tycoon-the-donations-to-Labour-and-36m-in-subsidies.html

And people believed Anderson was a bandit!

Anyway...

ALAN HOUGHTON'S FAN'S VIEW: Things looking up, both on and off the pitch, at Wanderers Large

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Just a personal view but out of the list of 290 unsecured creditors, there are 289 I'd have preferred settled before Forest Green Rovers. As for the creepy photos, yuck.

Totally agree with the creepy pictures (below) but I thought FGR was a 'footballing creditor' and so had to be settled first even though it was an unsecured creditor?

I am a little bit confused though as to its 'classification' however as if it was a footballing creditor then wouldn't that have meant that the agreed settlement would have to have been made before the takeover and not now?

Conversely if it was just a 'normal' unsecured creditor then I thought the EFL rules said that they all had to be treated equally - if so why then a need for this visit and agreed 'settlement'?

Vince certainly knows how to 'milk' the system and has already obtained £36m for himself (or more correctly his company the he wholly owns - and which in turn pays him interest free loans!) when this article was written in Feb 2015.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11413504/The-wind-tycoon-the-donations-to-Labour-and-36m-in-subsidies.html

And people believed Anderson was a bandit!

Anyway...

ALAN HOUGHTON'S FAN'S VIEW: Things looking up, both on and off the pitch, at Wanderers Large
FGR is a football creditor which gives it preference (which it scarcely deserves). Why should multi-millionaire Vince have preference over landladies taking care of BWFC academy players? But that's the way the cookie crumbles unfortunately.

And no the administrator seems to have ruled out responsibility for agreeing the details. What do you expect for a measly million?

Not impressed by Shazza and Emma thinking that its a good PR exercise. Do they think BWFC fans are too dopey to see through it?

As for Mr Vince playing the wounded soldier, I'm sure he always knew that FGR was a preferred creditor and he didn't need to lose too much sleep over getting his money, one way or another.

Maybe the Daily Telegraph could take a closer look at how cousin Vinny seems to organise his tax affairs from his taxpayer-subsidised business?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:FGR is a football creditor which gives it preference (which it scarcely deserves). Why should multi-millionaire Vince have preference over landladies taking care of BWFC academy players? But that's the way the cookie crumbles unfortunately.

And no the administrator seems to have ruled out responsibility for agreeing the details. What do you expect for a measly million?

Not impressed by Shazza and Emma thinking that its a good PR exercise. Do they think BWFC fans are too dopey to see through it?

As for Mr Vince playing the wounded soldier, I'm sure he always knew that FGR was a preferred creditor and he didn't need to lose too much sleep over getting his money, one way or another.

Maybe the Daily Telegraph could take a closer look at how cousin Vinny seems to organise his tax affairs from his taxpayer-subsidised business?

It's all academic now but I never could understand the fuss made at the time by Vince - and events since underline why I was right to question it.

The Doidge transfer was entered into legally and the intent was to buy him in the January window.  This can be taken as a fact due to FGR having a case against us when Vance (note not Anderson) scuppered the deal in January.

Remi Matthews/Norwich City was/were in exactly the same position as Doidge/FGR come the opening of the transfer window/payment of players wages - and so to was O'Neil except he was a free agent with no club involved - but had signed a contract accordingly.

Eddie Davies had sadly died between the signing of those three deals and the January window and based on everything he had done to date would almost certainly facilitated all three transfers - all three of which require just a week extra grace period until the Sky money came through to settle all these three debts (which were footballing creditors and all that remember!).

The EFL paid Norwich/Matthews and O'Neil direct and would obviously done the same for Doidge/FGR - who it seemed wanted to be at Bolton (much bigger wage/bought a house/etc).

Doidge having already played that season for FGR and Bolton could not play for another club and so went back to a club he was keen to leave - he subsequently left FGR at the end of that season moved to Hibs for just £250k when FGR could have had £1m from us!

FGR/Vince didn't benefit in him returning - indeed they had a player who they had to find a wage budget for and who didn't want to be there - his playing record on his return wasn't anything special.

Doidge had not shown anything whilst he was at Bolton (1 goal in 27 appearances iirc) and if anything it actually benefited us from him not being on the payroll for the second half of last season.

Seems to me Vince acted like a petulant child and threw his toys out of his pram because he did not like Anderson - he made the issue personal and public.

Anderson for all his faults seemed to accurately describe Vance as weird (or words to that effect) which when you start to research the bloke seems like a reasonable description to say the least.

Of course the Anderson haters loved all the shit stirring at the time (I still can't believe the ST wasn't directly involved in some way - why else would Vince randomly donate the proceed of the sale of his infamous 'No Ken Do' T-shirts to them???).

As for the agreement between Sharon and Vince, what could it possibly be other than being a deferred payment?  The amount owed could not be disputed - there is a contract to state what cost for loan transfer and wages, etc would be - so it can only be the date of settlement - which would have been in full from the Sky money (via the EFL) last January - being a year ago now!

If anybody came out of the saga a loser it was Vince himself - Doidge got his wages paid (by FGR) throughout the season.  Others such as Matthews/Norwich got settled in full last January.  Bolton saved a half year of Doidge wages plus £1m transfer fee (which would have ended up having to be settled now by FV as an outstanding football creditor charge) - and Vince is still awaiting payment - otherwise the news reports would have told us the matter was 'settled' and not come to 'an agreement', and whilst being £750k down on the transfer!

Vince's actions made no sense to me at the time and a year later still doesn't make any sense, other than him throwing some sort of a tantrum rather than keep his cool for just a week longer.

All water under the bridge now though.

As for anyone looking into Vince's questionable (but presumably legal) business dealings - is it really that much different than what Anderson was vilified for?

They both seem to be in business for what they can get out of it and Vince has certainly milked the public purse (our money what we pay in taxes remember) many times more than anything Anderson was possibly able to extract from a financial basket case of a company he took over for just one pound and which he inherited the millions it was in debt to at the time.

The thing is though many people believe what they are told - and they believe - and still do, that Anderson is the Devil, Vince is the hero and that Sharon and Emma's visit to FGR was indeed a great PR exercise - you only have to look on social media such as twitter for people's comments to see that.

As some apparently wise character tells us "stupid is as stupid does"!

(Anybody spot my deliberate and apt Forrest reference there?)

Merry Christmas one and all!

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:FGR is a football creditor which gives it preference (which it scarcely deserves). Why should multi-millionaire Vince have preference over landladies taking care of BWFC academy players? But that's the way the cookie crumbles unfortunately.

And no the administrator seems to have ruled out responsibility for agreeing the details. What do you expect for a measly million?

Not impressed by Shazza and Emma thinking that its a good PR exercise. Do they think BWFC fans are too dopey to see through it?

As for Mr Vince playing the wounded soldier, I'm sure he always knew that FGR was a preferred creditor and he didn't need to lose too much sleep over getting his money, one way or another.

Maybe the Daily Telegraph could take a closer look at how cousin Vinny seems to organise his tax affairs from his taxpayer-subsidised business?

It's all academic now but I never could understand the fuss made at the time by Vince - and events since underline why I was right to question it.

The Doidge transfer was entered into legally and the intent was to buy him in the January window.  This can be taken as a fact due to FGR having a case against us when Vance (note not Anderson) scuppered the deal in January.

Remi Matthews/Norwich City was/were in exactly the same position as Doidge/FGR come the opening of the transfer window/payment of players wages - and so to was O'Neil except he was a free agent with no club involved - but had signed a contract accordingly.

Eddie Davies had sadly died between the signing of those three deals and the January window and based on everything he had done to date would almost certainly facilitated all three transfers - all three of which require just a week extra grace period until the Sky money came through to settle all these three debts (which were footballing creditors and all that remember!).

The EFL paid Norwich/Matthews and O'Neil direct and would obviously done the same for Doidge/FGR - who it seemed wanted to be at Bolton (much bigger wage/bought a house/etc).

Doidge having already played that season for FGR and Bolton could not play for another club and so went back to a club he was keen to leave - he subsequently left FGR at the end of that season moved to Hibs for just £250k when FGR could have had £1m from us!

FGR/Vince didn't benefit in him returning - indeed they had a player who they had to find a wage budget for and who didn't want to be there - his playing record on his return wasn't anything special.

Doidge had not shown anything whilst he was at Bolton (1 goal in 27 appearances iirc) and if anything it actually benefited us from him not being on the payroll for the second half of last season.

Seems to me Vince acted like a petulant child and threw his toys out of his pram because he did not like Anderson - he made the issue personal and public.

Anderson for all his faults seemed to accurately describe Vance as weird (or words to that effect) which when you start to research the bloke seems like a reasonable description to say the least.

Of course the Anderson haters loved all the shit stirring at the time (I still can't believe the ST wasn't directly involved in some way - why else would Vince randomly donate the proceed of the sale of his infamous 'No Ken Do' T-shirts to them???).

As for the agreement between Sharon and Vince, what could it possibly be other than being a deferred payment?  The amount owed could not be disputed - there is a contract to state what cost for loan transfer and wages, etc would be - so it can only be the date of settlement - which would have been in full from the Sky money (via the EFL) last January - being a year ago now!

If anybody came out of the saga a loser it was Vince himself - Doidge got his wages paid (by FGR) throughout the season.  Others such as Matthews/Norwich got settled in full last January.  Bolton saved a half year of Doidge wages plus £1m transfer fee (which would have ended up having to be settled now by FV as an outstanding football creditor charge) - and Vince is still awaiting payment - otherwise the news reports would have told us the matter was 'settled' and not come to 'an agreement', and whilst being £750k down on the transfer!

Vince's actions made no sense to me at the time and a year later still doesn't make any sense, other than him throwing some sort of a tantrum rather than keep his cool for just a week longer.

All water under the bridge now though.

As for anyone looking into Vince's questionable (but presumably legal) business dealings - is it really that much different than what Anderson was vilified for?

They both seem to be in business for what they can get out of it and Vince has certainly milked the public purse (our money what we pay in taxes remember) many times more than anything Anderson was possibly able to extract from a financial basket case of a company he took over for just one pound and which he inherited the millions it was in debt to at the time.

The thing is though many people believe what they are told - and they believe - and still do, that Anderson is the Devil, Vince is the hero and that Sharon and Emma's visit to FGR was indeed a great PR exercise - you only have to look on social media such as twitter for people's comments to see that.

As some apparently wise character tells us "stupid is as stupid does"!

(Anybody spot my deliberate and apt Forrest reference there?)

Merry Christmas one and all!
I'm not convinced Eddie would have again facilitated the deals, Sluffy. I think he (and Sue) really  had reached the end of the line. More likely that KA had hoped to sell by January or thereabouts and, if he didn't, administration was the unavoidable outcome. Vince would have got his money but might just have to wait a bit longer for it.

I suspect Sue had helped influence Eddie to retire early from Strix whilst still in reasonable health and for them to jointly engage in other philanthropic ventures. e.g. The Edwin and Sue Davies Galleries at the V&A and the Davies Alpine House at Kew Gardens. As opposed, of course, to splurging the lot on keeping BWFC afloat.

Being the owner of BWFC had, without doubt, been extremely stressful for Eddie and I expect Sue was mightily relieved when he handed over responsibility to the 'Sports Shield Consortium'. But, of course, that wasn't to be the end of it.

How did Vince get away with avoiding income tax on the huge loans from Ecotricity? By the company purchasing some of his own shares without Vince giving up any of his 100% ownership. I don't expect he thought of that one himself.

The usual suspects are purring like pussycats over more of Sharon's carefully chosen words but they don't really amount to very much. Meanwhile the strategy and intentions of FV remain unclear other than to pay as little as possible for as long as possible. Can't say I blame them for that, mind you.

FGR were quick to file their 2018 accounts but not so quick in 2019. I wonder what Sharon and Emma learned, or hoped to learn, from Mr Vince. FGR operates on a fraction of the staff numbers and costs of BWFC.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:FGR is a football creditor which gives it preference (which it scarcely deserves). Why should multi-millionaire Vince have preference over landladies taking care of BWFC academy players? But that's the way the cookie crumbles unfortunately.

And no the administrator seems to have ruled out responsibility for agreeing the details. What do you expect for a measly million?

Not impressed by Shazza and Emma thinking that its a good PR exercise. Do they think BWFC fans are too dopey to see through it?

As for Mr Vince playing the wounded soldier, I'm sure he always knew that FGR was a preferred creditor and he didn't need to lose too much sleep over getting his money, one way or another.

Maybe the Daily Telegraph could take a closer look at how cousin Vinny seems to organise his tax affairs from his taxpayer-subsidised business?

It's all academic now but I never could understand the fuss made at the time by Vince - and events since underline why I was right to question it.

The Doidge transfer was entered into legally and the intent was to buy him in the January window.  This can be taken as a fact due to FGR having a case against us when Vance (note not Anderson) scuppered the deal in January.

Remi Matthews/Norwich City was/were in exactly the same position as Doidge/FGR come the opening of the transfer window/payment of players wages - and so to was O'Neil except he was a free agent with no club involved - but had signed a contract accordingly.

Eddie Davies had sadly died between the signing of those three deals and the January window and based on everything he had done to date would almost certainly facilitated all three transfers - all three of which require just a week extra grace period until the Sky money came through to settle all these three debts (which were footballing creditors and all that remember!).

The EFL paid Norwich/Matthews and O'Neil direct and would obviously done the same for Doidge/FGR - who it seemed wanted to be at Bolton (much bigger wage/bought a house/etc).

Doidge having already played that season for FGR and Bolton could not play for another club and so went back to a club he was keen to leave - he subsequently left FGR at the end of that season moved to Hibs for just £250k when FGR could have had £1m from us!

FGR/Vince didn't benefit in him returning - indeed they had a player who they had to find a wage budget for and who didn't want to be there - his playing record on his return wasn't anything special.

Doidge had not shown anything whilst he was at Bolton (1 goal in 27 appearances iirc) and if anything it actually benefited us from him not being on the payroll for the second half of last season.

Seems to me Vince acted like a petulant child and threw his toys out of his pram because he did not like Anderson - he made the issue personal and public.

Anderson for all his faults seemed to accurately describe Vance as weird (or words to that effect) which when you start to research the bloke seems like a reasonable description to say the least.

Of course the Anderson haters loved all the shit stirring at the time (I still can't believe the ST wasn't directly involved in some way - why else would Vince randomly donate the proceed of the sale of his infamous 'No Ken Do' T-shirts to them???).

As for the agreement between Sharon and Vince, what could it possibly be other than being a deferred payment?  The amount owed could not be disputed - there is a contract to state what cost for loan transfer and wages, etc would be - so it can only be the date of settlement - which would have been in full from the Sky money (via the EFL) last January - being a year ago now!

If anybody came out of the saga a loser it was Vince himself - Doidge got his wages paid (by FGR) throughout the season.  Others such as Matthews/Norwich got settled in full last January.  Bolton saved a half year of Doidge wages plus £1m transfer fee (which would have ended up having to be settled now by FV as an outstanding football creditor charge) - and Vince is still awaiting payment - otherwise the news reports would have told us the matter was 'settled' and not come to 'an agreement', and whilst being £750k down on the transfer!

Vince's actions made no sense to me at the time and a year later still doesn't make any sense, other than him throwing some sort of a tantrum rather than keep his cool for just a week longer.

All water under the bridge now though.

As for anyone looking into Vince's questionable (but presumably legal) business dealings - is it really that much different than what Anderson was vilified for?

They both seem to be in business for what they can get out of it and Vince has certainly milked the public purse (our money what we pay in taxes remember) many times more than anything Anderson was possibly able to extract from a financial basket case of a company he took over for just one pound and which he inherited the millions it was in debt to at the time.

The thing is though many people believe what they are told - and they believe - and still do, that Anderson is the Devil, Vince is the hero and that Sharon and Emma's visit to FGR was indeed a great PR exercise - you only have to look on social media such as twitter for people's comments to see that.

As some apparently wise character tells us "stupid is as stupid does"!

(Anybody spot my deliberate and apt Forrest reference there?)

Merry Christmas one and all!
I'm not convinced Eddie would have again facilitated the deals, Sluffy. I think he (and Sue) really  had reached the end of the line. More likely that KA had hoped to sell by January or thereabouts and, if he didn't, administration was the unavoidable outcome.

I suspect Sue had also helped influence Eddie to retire early from Strix whilst still in reasonable health and for them to jointly engage in other philanthropic ventures. e.g. The Edwin and Sue Davies Galleries at the V&A and the Davies Alpine House at Kew Gardens. As opposed, of course, to splurging the lot on keeping BWFC afloat.

Being the owner of BWFC had, without doubt, been extremely stressful for Eddie and I expect Sue was mightily relieved when he handed over responsibility to the 'Sports Shield Consortium'. But, of course, that wasn't to be the end of it.

How did Vince get away with paying income tax on the huge loans from Ecotricity? By the company purchasing of some of his own shares without Vince giving up any share of the ownership. I don't expect he thought of that himself.

The usual suspects are purring like pussycats over more of Sharon's carefully chosen words but they don't really amount to very much. Meanwhile the strategy and intentions of FV remain rather obscure other than to pay as little as possible for as long as possible. Can't say I blame them for that, mind you.

Maybe so about Eddie running out of patience backing Ken financially but I still return to the fact that the Doidge transfer was contractually entered into and whoever owned the club when settlement was due had a legal obligation to satisfy.

The circumstances were exactly the same as with the Matthews and Norwich loan/sale contract that was entered into (and O'Neil was more or less the same apart from him being a free agent on signing).

Matthews deal was resolved in full to everybody's satisfaction (albeit a couple of weeks later than the agreed date) and Doidge's could have been done at the same time also, until Vince decided to make a personal issue about it - and consequently a year later he is still having to wait for his money (now from FV) who clearly are making him wait longer for full settlement.

Add to that, that he lost £750k on Doidge's ultimate net sale price. then Vince did himself no favours at all.

I return to my actual point though and reiterate that there could never have been an intent for Anderson to obtain Doidge for half a season, not buy him in January as contractually agreed, and send him back to FGR without there being legal/EFL consequences.

If Eddie really wanted to exit BWFC fully then again the question that must be asked is why sell it to the penniless Holdsworth (particularly when a cursory look at his known associates would have rang all sorts of warning bells) and ultimately Anderson?

I really can't believe that his was the only (or best) deal on the table - and Eddie must have known that he couldn't possibly cut all ties to the club whilst Holdsworth hadn't the money to run it and knowing he still remained a massive financial interest in it via his secured creditor status.

Fwiw I listened to one of Iles self indulgent Buff podcast's the other day featuring clearly his very close friend David Wheater as I was interested as to what stories he might tell on the likes of Coyle and Anderson in particular.

Needless to say it was once again a car crash of an interview, which was completely sycophantic, self centred and laddish and myopically based on themselves without any real thought of anything beyond their own little worlds.  Indeed I can't remember Eddie being mentioned once throughout the 45 minute ordeal that I stupidly sat through.

I mention this only because for a brief moment Holdsworth name was mentioned, acknowledged that he had no money to run the club and the conversation instead of seeking the reasons why he might have, instead went along the opinion that poor people should not buy clubs they can't run, then went back to chatting about how Wheater and his side kick Vela was always getting pissed up somewhere or other.

I noted that although the podcast was number 12 in the series that listening figures had already plummeted down to about 270 people including myself and if this particular interview was their season's blockbuster Christmas special, then they'd be lucky to get anywhere like that for their next one as I for one won't be listening to that puerile drivel again.

I note your reference to Sharon's Chairman's notes (I'll post it up as a new thread shortly) but you are absolutely correct once again in saying that many are purring like pussycats over nothing at all in particular - there's certainly no hard information given out at all to go on?

I'm not having a pop at her/FV but she/they aren't here for the good of their health, they are here to get a return on their money.

That will obviously have consequences sooner or later down the line.

It's not rocket science to realise that.

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Thanks for the response, Sluffy. My apologies, but I made one or two later amendments in relation to points I hadn't covered.

I doubt that Eddie intended to sell to Holdsworth at all. He'll have seen the characters Holdsworth was associating with and probably intended to go for admin until Anderson arrived late on the scene. Who knows how that happened?

Not exactly a great CV, but at least KA had expertise that might just stave off admin for a while and allow the continued search for a more well-heeled purchaser to turn up.

It must have nearly broken Eddie's heart to hand it over in these circumstances but Anderson did take it on quite successfully for a couple of years, always desparately short of money and Holdsworth taking out an unaffordable chunk of what little there was.

The Holdsworth legacy lasted all the way to the end of August 2018 because if Anderson had sold shares in that time another £250K had to be found to pay the liquidator of Sports Shield BWFC.

I've little doubt that anyone interested in taking it on will have noted Anderson's vulnerability and thought it better to play a waiting game and get it for less. i.e. Exactly what happened in the end.

As for Doidge and the other acquisitions, I'm sure KA wanted to sell a Championship club but that was scuppered for a variety of reasons not least the poisonous atmosphere that resulted in the players strike even before the 2018/19 season started. Whose voices were the players listening to, I wonder? I doubt all of them were players or the management team.

Anyway it looks like Marc Iles has discovered that the administrators are not happy about being unpaid to date. I understand that this was reported in The Athletic more than a week ago.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Thanks for the response, Sluffy. My apologies, but I made one or two later amendments in relation to points I hadn't covered.

I doubt that Eddie intended to sell to Holdsworth at all. He'll have seen the characters Holdsworth was associating with and probably intended to go for admin until Anderson arrived late on the scene. Who knows how that happened?

Not exactly a great CV, but at least KA had expertise that might just stave off admin for a while and allow the continued search for a more well-healed purchaser to turn up.

It must have nearly broken Eddie's heart to hand it over in these circumstances but Anderson did take it on quite successfully for a couple of years, always desparately short of money and Holdsworth taking out an unaffordable chunk of what little there was.

The Holdsworth legacy lasted all the way to the end of August 2018 because if Anderson had sold shares in that time another £250K had to be found to pay the liquidator of Sports Shield BWFC.

I've little doubt that anyone interested in taking it on will have noted Anderson's vulnerability and thought it better to play a waiting game and get it for less. i.e. Exactly what happened in the end.

As for Doidge and the other acquisitions, I'm sure KA wanted to sell a Championship club but that was scuppered for a variety of reasons not least the poisonous atmosphere that resulted in the players strike even before the 2018/19 season started. Whose voices were the players listening to, I wonder? I doubt all of them were players or the management team.

Anyway it looks like Marc Iles has discovered that the administrators are not happy about being unpaid to date. I understand that this was reported in The Athletic more than a week ago.

Yes I tend to think along the same lines as yourself, probably because we both tend to think and reason for ourselves than follow the crowd and rhetoric from the likes of initially the ST and continued (even to this day) by Iles - although I note under the papers new editor that his constant snipes and poisonous crowd pleasing bias and comments which he featured daily on twitter is a thing of the past (and that he also didn't replace his 'pushed' alcoholic boss Bonnar) and speaks volumes to me as to how his employers have viewed his so called 'professional' behaviour.

I can't understand why Eddie sold to Holdsworth - he could always have taken the Administration route instead - other than to think/believe he could still be the puppet master away from being the club owner - maybe his way of being involved whilst at the same time stepping away as to presumably comply with his wife/family wishes?

It seemed to me at the time that Trevor Birch's master plan was to get the ST to front the purchase instead (with Eddie's hand/money being in the background) which if so was completely unpalatable to Davies.

Surely though there would have been better options to both than these two muppet choices, so I can only come up with the explanation that he didn't want to taint his officially legacy ending in insolvency/Administration?  If so a vain and costly financial (and personally social) error.

I also concur that the preseason 'unofficial' (I can't stress this enough) players strike was the catalyst of the toxicity that followed from then on until now.

Iles was completely unprofessional to get involved and report it simply because his player mate Wheater was the instigator and ringleader.  I remind people that the strike was about unpaid bonuses not paid to former players - and as thus did not effect the current squad.  It was a clear (and at the time) unnecessary confrontational challenge to the club owner and led to the fans and social media seeking to force him out - without even a ball being kicked that season.

Is it any wonder if this daily torrent of abuse that now was aimed at him and his family from then on must have effected and influenced how he acted in respect of the club, it's players and its fans?

I'm not saying Anderson was a saint but he certainly wasn't anything like the devil he was (and still is) portrayed as.  He's still not been arrested and thrown in jail yet has he - despite all the moronic claims people have made about what he had supposedly done!

Still water under the bridge.  I note that Sharon's New Year resolution is not to talk of Anderson the past, hopefully that will include the reprehensible Vince and his financial empire funded by us the taxpayers!

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Eddie said it was a close a call but just over two years after he made it, BWFC had not just re-gained Championship status but retained it against all the odds. It must have really grated with FIBS and the the ST.

I always quite liked David Wheater but I'm not sure he'd know an agent provocateur if he fell over one.

P.S. Do you think that Sharon might have been tipped off that the tide might turn at some stage?



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Fri Dec 27 2019, 22:40; edited 1 time in total

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
I've not worked Sharon out yet.

On the one hand she is clearly a family type person, both with her children and with those at the club but she is also a seemingly successful and certainly capable business woman, who one would think must have a ruthless streak in her to do the necessary as and when it is required.

I don't doubt the former is genuine from her - she's pictured often with her kids at the ground already, which, knowing the fickleness and anger/hatred/cretinous behaviour of some football supporters, is certainly something I personally would not do with my family.

From a business point of view the club/business will be running at a loss and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future until significant changes happen, namely the club gets back into the PL or it's running costs become low enough to make a profit from turnover.  That isn't going to happen on a club with a near 30k capacity stadium with attendance dropping below the 10k mark the longer we stay in the bottom tiers of the league.

So somethings got to change.

My guess as I've said before is that the land and stadium is developed and the team is relocated away to a significantly smaller ground, closer to Bolton and we move towards becoming a Rochdale/Oldham like club, rather than a Blackburn/Burnley type one - ie our aspirations (and dreams) become more about a family/social club rather than one with ambition and determination to risk reaching the top, no matter what.

Is that what people would like?  

Maybe so but it wouldn't be my wish.

Anyway I could be miles wrong with my thoughts on the future.

One thing I don't doubt though is in a season or two and if we find ourselves struggling in the league, there will be calls for her to go and sell the club to someone with money and ambition to make the club successful again.

As for Wheater I've no doubt he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but he's certainly played a massive part in the toxicity that almost wiped out the club.  There's often wrong on both sides and Wheater isn't blameless in the resulting car crash events of 2018/19.

As for FIBS and the ST who cares what they think, I don't for one.

They've wasted hours and hours of their own life's foaming at the mouth over something they had zero control or influence over.

More fool them - although I bet each and every one of them consider themselves to be smart and intelligent.

Yeah of course you are!

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
'They've wasted hours and hours of their own lives foaming at the mouth over something they had zero control or influence over'.

:rofl:

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:I've not worked Sharon out yet.

On the one hand she is clearly a family type person, both with her children and with those at the club but she is also a seemingly successful and certainly capable business woman, who one would think must have a ruthless streak in her to do the necessary as and when it is required.

I don't doubt the former is genuine from her - she's pictured often with her kids at the ground already, which, knowing the fickleness and anger/hatred/cretinous behaviour of some football supporters, is certainly something I personally would not do with my family.

From a business point of view the club/business will be running at a loss and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future until significant changes happen, namely the club gets back into the PL or it's running costs become low enough to make a profit from turnover.  That isn't going to happen on a club with a near 30k capacity stadium with attendance dropping below the 10k mark the longer we stay in the bottom tiers of the league.

So somethings got to change.

My guess as I've said before is that the land and stadium is developed and the team is relocated away to a significantly smaller ground, closer to Bolton and we move towards becoming a Rochdale/Oldham like club, rather than a Blackburn/Burnley type one - ie our aspirations (and dreams) become more about a family/social club rather than one with ambition and determination to risk reaching the top, no matter what.

Is that what people would like?  

Maybe so but it wouldn't be my wish.

Anyway I could be miles wrong with my thoughts on the future.

One thing I don't doubt though is in a season or two and if we find ourselves struggling in the league, there will be calls for her to go and sell the club to someone with money and ambition to make the club successful again.

As for Wheater I've no doubt he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but he's certainly played a massive part in the toxicity that almost wiped out the club.  There's often wrong on both sides and Wheater isn't blameless in the resulting car crash events of 2018/19.

As for FIBS and the ST who cares what they think, I don't for one.

They've wasted hours and hours of their own life's foaming at the mouth over something they had zero control or influence over.

More fool them - although I bet each and every one of them consider themselves to be smart and intelligent.

Yeah of course you are!
Can't agree with you about FIBS and the ST, Sluffy. They were unrelentingly poisonous eating away at the morale of players, employees and supporters in their self-righteous cause of getting shut of a 'rogue' chairman irrespective of the damage they were doing.

The poison is still embedded in the system and likely to remain there for some years to come.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:As for FIBS and the ST who cares what they think, I don't for one.

They've wasted hours and hours of their own life's foaming at the mouth over something they had zero control or influence over.

More fool them - although I bet each and every one of them consider themselves to be smart and intelligent.

Yeah of course you are!

Can't agree with you about FIBS and the ST, Sluffy. They were unrelentingly poisonous eating away at the morale of players, employees and supporters in their self-righteous cause of getting shut of a 'rogue' chairman irrespective of the damage they were doing.

The poison is still embedded in the system and likely to remain there for some years to come.

Of course you are correct in what you say but the milk has been spilt now so there's nothing anyone can do about that.

It would seem to me that Sharon has quickly identified this poison inside the club when she took over and the first thing she's done is to publicly announce that she has told the staff and players to rule a line under it and move on - indeed her stated New Year resolution she tells us is that she isn't going to mention the past!

She's right of course, dwelling in the past is not good for anyone, times change, life moves on.

Harold Wilson once said that a week was a long time in politics, and I think the same can be said for football too.  Most fans care about what is happening to the club now, not what had happened to it (and why we find ourselves where we are) or what is going to happen to us in the future (what the business plan is), as clearly can be demonstrated by how we've been generally treated on social media for simply trying to explain how we got into the financial mess we did, what was required to extradite ourselves from it, and what is likely to happen in the future based on our current trading position.

The vast majority of posters on Wways and Nuts have already moved on from posting about their hatred of Anderson leaving just the obsessives like Iles behind.

Sharon's probably never heard of Firth, Shortland and Bower and they have already become inconsequential to virtually everyone but themselves and Iles since Ken's departure.

Iles has clearly been slapped down by his bosses at the paper for his lack of professionalism as can be evidenced that his twitter account has virtually been muted of his tirade of personal comments as was his style prior to his new bosses arrival and, more tellingly, his lack of filling his bosses shoes (Neil Bonnar) as Head of Sport at the paper on him leaving (being potted!).

Iles seems to continue to be bitter over Anderson as per his immaturity on his abysmal podcasts but as no one seems to be listening to them much, he seems to be doing no bother other than to himself.

As for the ST's behaviour, they have virtually self harmed themselves to the point that they are now totally irrelevant to everyone but themselves - no doubt Sharon has come to a similar conclusion by now.

So I see no point giving FIBS and the ST further mind - the poison they spread will fade with time, the damage they've done will eventually heal and nothing they said or did actually achieved anything, Anderson left on his own terms, so they didn't even achieve what they set out to do!

As I've said above, no one is ever totally right and the other person totally wrong, there's always some fault on either side.  FIBS and the ST contributed significantly to the toxicity at the club, there's no doubt about that, whichever side you view it from.

Anderson has gone though and all but Iles are now side-lined and if the mindless sheep that still view him as their sheppard, then that's up to them but his card as clearly been marked and as far as I recall apart from Sharon's first day at the club, she's never given him a quote ever since.

I don't think that is just a pure coincidence either!

I'm certainly not going to waste my time on those cranks and suggest no one else does as well!

Onwards and upwards - as ever.

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Have to disagree about ignoring the past. When the past is distorted or ignored we learn nothing from it but we ought to learn as much from past failures as past successes.

Orwell had it about right though,'Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Have to disagree about ignoring the past. When the past is distorted or ignored we learn nothing from it but we ought to learn as much from past failures as past successes.

Orwell had it about right though,'Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'

I didn't actually say ignore the past, forgive me if I hadn't made myself clear about that.  

What I was trying to say is whatever influence FIBS and the ST's had as now long since evaporated away, so much so that they are now all totally irrelevant - and should be treated as such imo.

Sharon now controls the present and has openly stated that we have moved on both as a club and as individuals who were at the club during that time - distancing herself (and the club) from the like of FIBS and I strongly suspect the ST too (at least whilst it still remains under the control of the current leadership).

I strongly agree we do learn from the past (hence the saying about learning from our mistakes, for instance) but I personally don't see any point in giving any further oxygen to the Firth's, etc, as they simply aren't relevant anymore.

Sharon I strongly suspect has the measure of Iles and the ST and probably had never heard of the rest of internet key board warriors anyway.

I think most Wanderers fans are happy just to move on and leave the hatred behind.

The past has shaped FV's business plans for the future and we are now on that road, which is a direct result if you like from having to do something about the state of Burnden Park, to building and moving to the Reebok, to Eddie bailing us out, then spending a fortune for us to 'live the dream', for that to turn into a financial nightmare, to the sale to Holdsworth then on to Anderson and most recently the purchase by FV.

FIBS et al haven't been influential in any way in placing us on the road we are on and travelled, but simply added unnecessary toxicity to it in the last couple of years.

The moving finger has written and has now moved on - type of thing - FIBS and the ST haven't ever been relevant to the main story  or have influenced it in any way at all and are certainly totally obsolete since Ken's departure and Sharon's arrival and thus should be left in the past.

That's how I view things.

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
I strongly suspect that Sharon's abrupt change in tack is connected with being reminded, by those who do watch the internet on her behalf, that there are BWFC supporters who are not purring pussycats and reminded also that Michael James was one of the Unibol Four put on trial in the Court of Terrence Rigby charged with the crime of lending money to BWFC when BWFC was in urgent or critical need of funds.

Then again she might have received legal advice to be a bit more discerning or to just button it.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I strongly suspect that Sharon's abrupt change in tack is connected with being reminded, by those who do watch the internet on her behalf, that there are BWFC supporters who are not purring pussycats and reminded also that Michael James was one of the Unibol Four put on trial in the Court of Terrence Rigby charged with the crime of lending money to BWFC when BWFC was in urgent or critical need of funds.

Then again she might have received legal advice to be a bit more discerning or to just button it.

The only big change I've noticed in Sharon's public behaviour is that of seemingly moving away from apparently working in partnership (the ST's claim) with the ST in putting on the Fan Zone, to there being absolutely no mention of them at all - see for instance this link for future events -

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2019/december/fanzone-returns-for-early-2020-fixtures/#.XgJtyGaUJ1Y.twitter

However I guess this could be for a variety of reasons ranging from the ST probably overstating their involvement right from the off, to legal concerns that the ST is probably no longer a constituted body because it has failed to hold AGM's and submit its accounts.

It could also be that Sharon/her regime have not liked what they have seen with dealings with them to simply waiting for them to finally hold their AGM and submit their accounts before involving them fully on all things BWFC!

Tbh, I'd be mightily surprised if the ST hold their elections before the end of January as they claim they will be doing, not least because of the timescale to actually organise such an event constitutionally.

Even when they eventually do get around to it, there is clearly not going to be any substantial change as there is deep rooted widespread mistrust of them by the vast majority of Wanderers fans.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if no one new puts up for election to the Board, no vote is held and the current board is re-elected on the nod yet again.

I think Sharon and her team have sussed them out already though.

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I strongly suspect that Sharon's abrupt change in tack is connected with being reminded, by those who do watch the internet on her behalf, that there are BWFC supporters who are not purring pussycats and reminded also that Michael James was one of the Unibol Four put on trial in the Court of Terrence Rigby charged with the crime of lending money to BWFC when BWFC was in urgent or critical need of funds.

Then again she might have received legal advice to be a bit more discerning or to just button it.

The only big change I've noticed in Sharon's public behaviour is that of seemingly moving away from apparently working in partnership (the ST's claim) with the ST in putting on the Fan Zone, to there being absolutely no mention of them at all - see for instance this link for future events -

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2019/december/fanzone-returns-for-early-2020-fixtures/#.XgJtyGaUJ1Y.twitter

However I guess this could be for a variety of reasons ranging from the ST probably overstating their involvement right from the off, to legal concerns that the ST is probably no longer a constituted body because it has failed to hold AGM's and submit its accounts.

It could also be that Sharon/her regime have not liked what they have seen with dealings with them to simply waiting for them to finally hold their AGM and submit their accounts before involving them fully on all things BWFC!

Tbh, I'd be mightily surprised if the ST hold their elections before the end of January as they claim they will be doing, not least because of the timescale to actually organise such an event constitutionally.

Even when they eventually do get around to it, there is clearly not going to be any substantial change as there is deep rooted widespread mistrust of them by the vast majority of Wanderers fans.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if no one new puts up for election to the Board, no vote is held  and the current board is re-elected on the nod yet again.

I think Sharon and her team have sussed them out already though.
I really cannot say whether 'there is deep rooted widespread mistrust of them (the ST) by the vast majority of Wanderers fans'. All  I have noticed is that a large number of fans seem to have lapped up the diet of hogwash and half-baked tripe served up by the BN and the ST, the 'trial of the Unibol Four' being the most recent example of the ST's bizarre efforts.

Just my opinion but you'd have to be a bit odd to want to spend your evenings listening to any of them but we'll have to wait and see who wants to be in their gang.

There used to be a fairly clued up individual called Bill Dawson who was involved in the earlier stages with the ST but I see now that he's part of the Community Trust; a very different organisation. I expect that there are a lot of fans that don't quite know that.

There's a learning curve for Sharon and Emma to go through. I hope they are quick learners.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I strongly suspect that Sharon's abrupt change in tack is connected with being reminded, by those who do watch the internet on her behalf, that there are BWFC supporters who are not purring pussycats and reminded also that Michael James was one of the Unibol Four put on trial in the Court of Terrence Rigby charged with the crime of lending money to BWFC when BWFC was in urgent or critical need of funds.

Then again she might have received legal advice to be a bit more discerning or to just button it.

The only big change I've noticed in Sharon's public behaviour is that of seemingly moving away from apparently working in partnership (the ST's claim) with the ST in putting on the Fan Zone, to there being absolutely no mention of them at all - see for instance this link for future events -

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2019/december/fanzone-returns-for-early-2020-fixtures/#.XgJtyGaUJ1Y.twitter

However I guess this could be for a variety of reasons ranging from the ST probably overstating their involvement right from the off, to legal concerns that the ST is probably no longer a constituted body because it has failed to hold AGM's and submit its accounts.

It could also be that Sharon/her regime have not liked what they have seen with dealings with them to simply waiting for them to finally hold their AGM and submit their accounts before involving them fully on all things BWFC!

Tbh, I'd be mightily surprised if the ST hold their elections before the end of January as they claim they will be doing, not least because of the timescale to actually organise such an event constitutionally.

Even when they eventually do get around to it, there is clearly not going to be any substantial change as there is deep rooted widespread mistrust of them by the vast majority of Wanderers fans.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if no one new puts up for election to the Board, no vote is held  and the current board is re-elected on the nod yet again.

I think Sharon and her team have sussed them out already though.
I really cannot say whether 'there is deep rooted widespread mistrust of them (the ST) by the vast majority of Wanderers fans'. All  I have noticed is that a large number of fans seem to have lapped up the diet of hogwash and half-baked tripe served up by the BN and the ST, the 'trial of the Unibol Four' being the most recent example of the ST's bizarre efforts.

Just my opinion but you'd have to be a bit odd to want to spend your evenings listening to any of them but we'll have to wait and see who wants to be in their gang.

There used to be a fairly clued up individual called Bill Dawson who was involved in the earlier stages with the ST but I see now that he's part of the Community Trust; a very different organisation. I expect that there are a lot of fans that don't quite know that.

There's a learning curve for Sharon and Emma to go through. I hope they are quick learners.

I'm fairly confident that there is such a widespread mistrust of them based on a number of observations, namely the sea change of public opinion on social media from when they held their first meeting to the present time.

Issues such as the credibility of several of their high profile board members such as Bridge (see Company House details) Izza (his bizarre 'nosegate' video) and Allanson (comments from his professional body) all gave rise to concern.  The distinct reluctance to give a full and open account of their £25k fund raising appeal and how it has been spent, the lack of any elections resulting in any change in its leadership - its constitution in fact being structured in such a way that it is ever unlikely to do so either!  The lack of holding AGM's and said elections, the lack of filing of accounts, etc, etc.

All these and more have resulted attendance at their public meetings falling from a full house from their first one to what 60 or so for their last.  

Iles however does retain his followers who seem to fawn on his every word but since the change in management at the paper it has become extremely noticeable that his social media behaviour has altered dramatically and he seldom if ever now posts his personal views on anything other than the footballing side of things in respect of the club!

As for Sharon and Emma, I've no doubt they are working towards their own agenda, which I speculate does include winning back the fans.  I'm sure they've worked out the ST by now as well as no doubt having met the Bolton News management and discussed their esteemed reporters behaviour during the clubs last owners tenure.  I very much doubt the same will be allowed to happen again!

Onwards and upwards.

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Although there seemed to be a temporary reduction in Marc Iles anti-Anderson propaganda when Adam Lord arrived at the BN, it seemed to me that they were resumed and continued until very recently.

In my long experience, Sluffy, members of clubs only take notice of governance issues when some major scandal over club funds emerges. Mr Rigby makes great play of the 4,000 that joined the ST and quite a few became dubious or critical, but the majority?

I do think Sharon made a big mistake in cosying up to individuals (the ST leadership) who had sought to denigrate Michael James who, after Eddie Davies, had done most to provide money to keep BWFC in business. Was it necessary, helpful or considerate to her ONLY fellow director?

The present mantra is to leave it all behind as if all outstanding issues have been resolved but I cannot see that they have. Are Walker Morris content with the handling of the administration? Is it not the administrators who will be reporting on the conduct of Ken Anderson (WM's client) who seemed to comply fully with his confidentiality obligations whilst others didn't and he continued to be defamed?

If KA has been guilty of wrongdoing, there is a proper process for dealing with it. It is not trial by defamation, media or any form of witch hunt.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Although there seemed to be a temporary reduction in Marc Iles anti-Anderson propaganda when Adam Lord arrived at the BN, it seemed to me that they were resumed and continued until very recently.

In my long experience, Sluffy, members of clubs only take notice of governance issues when some major scandal over club funds emerges. Mr Rigby makes great play of the 4,000 that joined the ST and quite a few became dubious or critical, but the majority?

I do think Sharon made a big mistake in cosying up to individuals (the ST leadership) who had sought to denigrate Michael James who, after Eddie Davies, had done most to provide money to keep BWFC in business. Was it necessary, helpful or considerate to her ONLY fellow director?

The present mantra is to leave it all behind as if all outstanding issues have been resolved but I cannot see that they have. Are Walker Morris content with the handling of the administration? Is it not the administrators who will be reporting on the conduct of Ken Anderson (WM's client) who seemed to comply fully with his confidentiality obligations whilst others didn't and he continued to be defamed?

If KA has been guilty of wrongdoing, there is a proper process for dealing with it. It is not trial by defamation, media or any form of witch hunt.

Iles hasn't changed his hatred of Anderson, that is clear from just the two podcasts of his I've had the misfortune to listen to, and as they go out under the BN name (The Buff) then you are right to say he's not been fully censured on this.

However I do counter with the clear fact that Mr Esteemed did not fill the shoes of his boss Bonnar (or even his Deputy Head of Sport when David Pye was recently shown the door) and that his then constant diatribe on Twitter virtually ceased over night and has not rekindled since.

I'm sure part of the reason for the latter is that he lost all his football buddies (Wheater, Taylor, Vela, etc) who were feeding them their hatred, and his mates inside the clubs administration who were telling him theirs.

The players have moved on and the staff are happy to go along with Sharon's plan and draw a line under Anderson and consign it to the past.

As for Sharon's relationship with the ST then I guess she initially wanted to get people buying Season Tickets again (FV as you note yourself seem to be light on funds generally so far) and wanted to get as many people on board as fast as she could.

Maybe she wasn't aware of the ST's view on James and EDT and even FV themselves at the time (I guess most strangers to a football club would automatically assume its ST was there to support the future survival of its beloved team and not to torpedo the lifeboats that were trying to save it!)?

Whatever it was she now seems to have distance herself from them.

As for the ST I think their relevance will be exposed to all if they ever do hold their elections as I believe it will once again show absolutely no interest from anyone in them.  I don't thing anyone will stand for election other than the existing ST Board members, I don't believe a vote will be necessary accordingly (a vote would show how many people would be even bothered to vote which I would suggest would be very few indeed) and that the same faces will be back in charge again.

In other words a completely pointless exercise to most of us with a brain in our head, namely they represent no one but themselves and certainly not the vast number of the fans as they claim to do.

It would seem our views on these issues are somewhat different to each other, which is unusual as we have constantly been on the same track as each other on so many other issues but I do think even despite the variation between us that we are ultimately on the same path, namely that Iles/ST/Fibs no longer have the same voice or supporters than when they had Anderson in their sights.

No one wants Sharon out, so the ST has no traction to try to force the current owner to go so they can take power for themselves.  Similarly Iles has no poison to spread on Sharon or her regime so far, so he is mute.

No doubt there are many twist and turns to come yet but the tide is on Sharon's side and until it turns (if ever) Iles and the rest are beached and withering away in the Sun.

Long may it be so for them!

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
I don't think we are very far apart, Sluffy, but there are still things I'm sceptical about. I certainly don't want to be on Sharon or Emma's back because like Ken Andersoon before them they are taking on a bundle of problems arising out of limited funds and no effective management for months before the takeover.

I also don't want to be defending Ken Anderson if he has been guilty of offences that I'm not presently aware of. However the accusation that he was a rogue owner that pocketed a £525K fee when BWFC gained promotion from League 1 appeared in just about every national newspaper and I cannot see that it ever reached its declared destination, Inner Circle Sports and Media, and no-one seems interested in where the money did go.

Emma was asked at the Lancaster Whites meeting who paid for the Reebok stadium. She said she didn't know. She was then asked about whether FV planned to commemorate the £195m ED spent on BWFC to which she said that FV had spoken to Eddie's widow shortly after the takeover but Sue wasn't ready. But how could anyone discuss with Eddie's widow how to commemorate his contribution without first establishing exactly what his contributions had been and when?

The present funding of FV seems to be mainly money borrowed on the security of assets that Eddie paid for. Shouldn't there at least be an effort to establish/acknowledge the facts even if there's not much you can do about them? I think there should.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I don't think we are very far apart, Sluffy, but there are still things I'm sceptical about. I certainly don't want to be on Sharon or Emma's back because like Ken Andersoon before them they are taking on a bundle of problems arising out of limited funds and no effective management for months before the takeover.

I also don't want to be defending Ken Anderson if he has been guilty of offences that I'm not presently aware of. However the accusation that he was a rogue owner that pocketed a £525K fee when BWFC gained promotion from League 1 appeared in just about every national newspaper and I cannot see that it ever reached its declared destination, Inner Circle Sports and Media, and no-one seems interested in where the money did go.

Emma was asked at the Lancaster Whites meeting who paid for the Reebok stadium. She said she didn't know. She was then asked about whether FV planned to commemorate the £195m ED spent on BWFC to which she said that FV had spoken to Eddie's widow shortly after the takeover but Sue wasn't ready. But how could anyone discuss with Eddie's widow how to commemorate his contribution without first establishing exactly what his contributions had been and when?

The present funding of FV seems to be mainly money borrowed on the security of assets that Eddie paid for. Shouldn't there at least be an effort to establish/acknowledge the facts even if there's not much you can do about them? I think there should.

Unless the administrators have looked forensically at the £525k (and other similar transactions presumably) then I think that horse has bolted never to return and the general belief that KA pocketed the money will never change, irrespective if it is actually true or not.

Similarly do new owners of the club really care much as to who put what into it before they arrived on the scene?

In reality they have bought the club as is today, and not one that one person spent a huge chunk of his personal fortune on a few years back.

Of course it is right and proper of them to tip their hat to that benefactor but they probably don't see a need to canonise him, especially when even now some/many fans still believe he never actually put so much money in, in the first place and/or he took more out than he ever put in!

I guess their view is that Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic club paid for the stadium (or at least committed to it) and Eddies money went to that (or the later Burnden Leisure) rather than him personally paying for the Reebok.

Perhaps Eddie would have been better buying it himself and renting it to the club - but he didn't.

So maybe in FV eye's Eddie didn't buy the stadium but did put money into a company that did - which they themselves have now bought out of Administration.

They have bought the title of a building that was always owned (and thus funded) by the club, irrespective of how the club went about funding that purchase/construction - which of course was from Eddie's financial generosity to the club (and
the thanks of people like ourselves who appreciate that).

I'm sensing there is some sort of bad blood between Eddies family and FV, maybe they wonder what may happen to Eddie's legacy - perhaps even that the Reebok may not be there for years to come?

Who knows, what is certain is that Davies hugely funded the club from his own pocket and a debt of gratitude towards that magnanimous gesture hasn't been physically shown in someway or other.

I don't think any deliberate sleight is intended in anyway from FV but maybe their business plans and the wishes of Eddie's family somehow conflict on how they both would wish to celebrate Eddie's memory?

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
'which they themselves have now bought out of Administration'. Well that is one way of putting it.

FV have subscribed £1.75m only. The purchase was at a massive discount on deferred payments and borrowings secured on Eddie's largesse. Are Eddie's family hoping for some futile gesture? I can't say I would if I were a member of his family.

In other news the ST are telling us all about their
Exciting BWFCST Website Updates for the New Year
Wow. Can't wait.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
ALAN HOUGHTON'S FAN'S VIEW: Things looking up, both on and off the pitch, at Wanderers Be1be793e30ac59bddff98a55164bc8e

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:'which they themselves have now bought out of Administration'. Well that is one way of putting it.

FV have subscribed £1.75m only. The purchase was at a massive discount on deferred payments and borrowings secured on Eddie's largesse. Are Eddie's family hoping for some futile gesture? I can't say I would if I were a member of his family.

In other news the ST are telling us all about their
Exciting BWFCST Website Updates for the New Year
Wow. Can't wait.

I can!

Seems part of the reason they are doing it is to up date their records of their members details - which I would suggest would further add to the impossibility of them achieving their proposed elections prior to the end of January. How can you possibly hold a proper election if you are unsure where to send the ballot paper to?

By the time they've completed that task, then set a date for nominations to be received for election to the board, then print and dispatch ballot papers and set a deadline for their return is very unlikely to be achieved in just four weeks in my experience.

Of course and if you are cynical enough they could of course meet the January target if once again nobody puts up for election other than those standing down, who would then once again be re-elected unopposed without the need of an actual election and saving weeks of the due process!

I've no idea if Eddie's family are hoping for any form of gesture from FV, I doubt many not associated with them would.

As for buying the club out of Administration, well, they are whom the Administrator sold it too and at a price and payment schedule agreeable to the creditors of the company (and in compliance with the EFL's requirements).

It's hardly FV's fault if the Administrator and creditors accepted their proposed purchase arrangements that involved such large deferred payments secured on the clubs assets (which Eddie ultimately had paid for).

They could always have said no to them.

Maybe FV's proposal was the only one that worked for everybody, maybe the Administrator could have achieved a better outcome for the creditors (a greater up front payment to the secured creditors for instance, perhaps), maybe the Administrators structured the Administration process in such a way that it precluded a better outcome somehow?

The bottom line is though is that FV and their proposals were the one agreed to and that's why we are where we are now, whether we believe it is fair to everyone or not.

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:'which they themselves have now bought out of Administration'. Well that is one way of putting it.

FV have subscribed £1.75m only. The purchase was at a massive discount on deferred payments and borrowings secured on Eddie's largesse. Are Eddie's family hoping for some futile gesture? I can't say I would if I were a member of his family.

In other news the ST are telling us all about their
Exciting BWFCST Website Updates for the New Year
Wow. Can't wait.

I can!

Seems part of the reason they are doing it is to up date their records of their members details - which I would suggest would further add to the impossibility of them achieving their proposed elections prior to the end of January.  How can you possibly hold a proper election if you are unsure where to send the ballot paper to?

By the time they've completed that task, then set a date for nominations to be received for election to the board, then print and dispatch ballot papers and set a deadline for their return is very unlikely to be achieved in just four weeks in my experience.

Of course and if you are cynical enough they could of course meet the January target if once again nobody puts up for election other than those standing down, who would then once again be re-elected unopposed without the need of an actual election and saving weeks of the due process!

I've no idea if Eddie's family are hoping for any form of gesture from FV, I doubt many not associated with them would.

As for buying the club out of Administration, well, they are whom the Administrator sold it too and at a price and payment schedule agreeable to the creditors of the company (and in compliance with the EFL's requirements).

It's hardly FV's fault if the Administrator and creditors accepted their proposed purchase arrangements that involved such large deferred payments secured on the clubs assets (which Eddie ultimately had paid for).

They could always have said no to them.

Maybe FV's proposal was the only one that worked for everybody, maybe the Administrator could have achieved a better outcome for the creditors (a greater up front payment to the secured creditors for instance, perhaps), maybe the Administrators structured the Administration process in such a way that it precluded a better outcome somehow?

The bottom line is though is that FV and their proposals were the one agreed to and that's why we are where we are now, whether we believe it is fair to everyone or not.

I know where we are, Sluffy, and I know why we are where we are. Nobody wanted BWFC unless they could get it at a heavy discount with creditors hit hardest.

If I seem angry, I'm not but I am disillusioned that large numbers of BWFC supporters seem happy to swallow any amount of disinformation, nicey nicey photos and PR spin.

As for where we are going under FV, its unclear except the unavoidable build up of losses and debt until they come up with some presently unknown scheme.

Btw I won't be voting in the ST elections and have no desire to see Marc Iles in The Buff.

Can I wish you, your family and everyone at Nuts a Happy New Year now?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I know where we are, Sluffy, and I know why we are where we are. Nobody wanted BWFC unless they could get it a heavy discount with creditors hit hardest.

If I seem angry, I'm not but I am disillusioned that large numbers of BWFC supporters seem happy to swallow any amount of disinformation, nicey nicey photos and PR spin.

As for where we are going under FV, its unclear except the unavoidable build up of losses and debt until they come up with some presently unknown scheme.

Btw I won't be  voting in the ST elections and have no desire to see Marc Iles in The Buff.

Can I wish you, your family and everyone at Nuts a Happy New Year now?

You can and happy, healthy and prosperous New Year to you and yours too.

I'm not sure if you believe I've been taken in with the new regime but I have clearly stated several times now that they can't trade and stay solvent on the turnover from football solely and up to now haven't let us in on their future thinking.

I still stand by my point though that ultimately EDT could have scuppered the sale to FV by voting to reject it and recover their debt in full much sooner from liquidation.

It may well have been a unpalatable thing for them to do but they held that option.

What other choices were left?

Whatever the reasons the sale did go through on the terms agreed and FV may well have got a very good deal from it but EDT knew very well what they were agreeing to, that point cannot be ignored.

I can't blame Sharon/FV attempting to make themselves popular with the fan base and current creditors such as Vince - they need money coming in to help pay the bills and delay payment of others, in order to trade as best they can until the master plan takes shape.

I don't think you are angry at all, I believe you to be a thinking man like myself who is governed by rationality and clarity of thought rather than emotions.  I do however understand your frustration with others who seem to be incapable of thinking/reasoning for themselves and rather sheep like follow the crowd blindly instead.

They say it is better to travel than to arrive and as such our journey has just left Anderson Town and has pulled in at Sharonville, being the next stop along the way.  It's not our final destination but we have to water and refresh ourselves whilst we are here.  

Many did not like Anderson Town and are thus over the moon to be here but a few of us like your good self didn't see everything being bad at our last stop nor everything being wonderful here.  

You can't tell the rest of our companions though because they simply don't want to hear.

Such is life.

Onwards and upwards for 2020 though and may it be a good one for all of us!

Happy New Year.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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