Dean Holdsworth quits Brentwood Town

Again, all just supposition and gut feeling on my part but I honestly believe that we are now so far down the road to (financial) perdition, ie struggling to pay day to day bills, flogging bits of the car park off, borrowing from Warburtons, being turned down for an overdraft extension by Barclays, etc that ED / Moonshift have now probably been forced into a position where they have to give serious credence to any group which says it's interested in taking the club on.

And that's why I think this takeover may actually happen.

Is it going to provide a springboard for a revival?

Who knows......?

Can any potential new owners even pump money into the playing side of things under the new FFP rules, even if they wanted to?

Again, who knows......?

But one thing is clear in my view: We can't keep haemorrhaging money the way we have been because we truly are in dire financial straits now and something's got to change quickly.

If ED changes his position re how much he'd need to walk and given that we have made massive cutbacks in wages and staffing, wouldn't it be worthwhile re-contacting the Thais, the Irish and the other consortia that have approached us in the past and see if they are interested in an improved deal?

wanderlust wrote:If ED changes his position re how much he'd need to walk and given that we have made massive cutbacks in wages and staffing, wouldn't it be worthwhile re-contacting the Thais, the Irish and the other consortia that have approached us in the past and see if they are interested in an improved deal?

Possibly but in doing so they'd be conceding the upper hand in any negotiations before the off, surely?

Crawling back to the table with your tail between your legs isn't the strongest bargaining position, is it?

That said though, a healthy dose of realpolitik is required from the people running the club and if it means there's a chance of getting something back and being able to cut further losses, I would have thought that they would need to be pragmatic and do whatever it took to facilitate a sale.

But as you well know already, I think Gartside's an idiot, so who knows....?

Breadman wrote:

wanderlust wrote:If ED changes his position re how much he'd need to walk and given that we have made massive cutbacks in wages and staffing, wouldn't it be worthwhile re-contacting the Thais, the Irish and the other consortia that have approached us in the past and see if they are interested in an improved deal?

Possibly but in doing so they'd be conceding the upper hand in any negotiations before the off, surely?

Not necessarily. If the deal has genuinely changed, then it's a different deal which may be now do-able. And if more than one investor group now fancies it, some level of competition will be created which would strengthen, rather than weaken the club's position.

That said I can only see the current owner negotiating to get more out of it personally, which would probably be at the expense of money available for players, so maybe it's not such a good plan.

Fully expect it to be adopted and implemented immediately then.....

Breadman wrote:

wanderlust wrote:If ED changes his position re how much he'd need to walk and given that we have made massive cutbacks in wages and staffing, wouldn't it be worthwhile re-contacting the Thais, the Irish and the other consortia that have approached us in the past and see if they are interested in an improved deal?

Possibly but in doing so they'd be conceding the upper hand in any negotiations before the off, surely?

Crawling back to the table with your tail between your legs isn't the strongest bargaining position, is it?

That said though, a healthy dose of realpolitik is required from the people running the club and if it means there's a chance of getting something back and being able to cut further losses, I would have thought that they would need to be pragmatic and do whatever it took to facilitate a sale.

But as you well know already, I think Gartside's an idiot, so who knows....?

One things for sure Gartside isn't an idiot - he wouldn't be a millionaire and be executive chairman of so many overseas companies, if he was.


Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of PG's either, but we're struggling more because an owner no longer thinks his 'toy' is fun anymore.

I'm sure I read somewhere that ED would write the debts of once the new owners have passed all the tests - including 'fit and proper persons' test.


People keep looking up Dean Holdsworth, but it's his partner Michael Collins - Real Estate Investor' they should be looking up (if I've got the right one).Don't think all the debt is due to the footballing side.


The Hotel is making losses and suspect most of that £50 million loss 2 years ago was buying the other 50% share of the hotel from the  De Vere Hotel Group (think it was them).



The club is asset rich but has cash flow problems at the moment, which is what PG is trying to say in a bungling sort of way.

If the debts are wiped and club retains everything for a mere £30 million (or less) then new owners would have done very well. However if strings are attached I expect the club to be asset stripped

observer wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Is this the rascal?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Simple... if they buy out Eddie for 30 million and wipe out the debts, spend some and get us to the first tier in 2 years, they will reap a fortune for their investors. 

Long term, probably not so good for us.  Short term, looks great.

Of course what happens when you have to spend to stay up (and we will struggle if we go up).  I guess avoiding relegation in tier one is certainly better than the drop from tier two.

Do a Burnley when we go up. Don't have to stay up, just make sure you go up every 2 years

Getting promoted every two years is not a simple task, although parachute payments give clubs coming down a massive advantage. Burnley, West Brom and Palace are examples of how to run a club properly.

Getting a bit ahead of ourselves aren't we?
Salvation first, world domination later perhaps....

Personally, if the club is taken over I would much prefer that the new ownership invested the money on providing a structure that enables the club to produce its own players and live within its means. There is plenty of life outside the Premier League and to be honest I ain't missing it, the Championship is a much better league in terms of competitiveness and is equally entertaining without the wallet busting ticket prices, especially if you want to follow your team away.

@MarcIles: Takeover talks still mired in secrecy - lots of nods and winks. But was assured today that they are moving in a positive direction.

Some interesting stuff on the debt situation to be revealed in tomorrow's BN apparently.

Hmmm.........

NickFazer wrote:Personally, if the club is taken over I would much prefer that the new ownership invested the money on providing a structure that enables the club to produce its own players and live within its means. There is plenty of life outside the Premier League and to be honest I ain't missing it, the Championship is a much better league in terms of competitiveness and is equally entertaining without the wallet busting ticket prices, especially if you want to follow your team away.

Think if new regime want to spend money it will be getting BWFC back to the Premiership where the money is.



Think a balance could be struck. Get up and then spend money on youth development when we get up

Amazing stuff in the latest from BN:


Former Wanderers striker Dean Holdsworth has been identified as one of the men involved in the talks, although it is now thought he may be acting as a go-between on behalf of a consortium of investors.
Davies and his legal representatives are thought to have taken a hands-on involvement in discussions and sources inside the club claim he has already rejected a handful of bids over the last 12 months because they failed to provide enough of a guarantee safeguarding the Whites’ future.



Parties on both sides of negotiations are unable to speak publicly for legal reasons. Details that were due to be confirmed at the weekend have remained under wraps but while solid information has been thin on the ground, sources close to the deal insist it is moving in a “positive direction”.



It now seems increasingly likely that if the current takeover talks reach fruition there will be a complete change in the hierarchy at the Macron, which could mean the end of Phil Gartside’s 16-year reign as chairman. Initial reports claimed two former Wanderers stalwarts Sam Allardyce and Phil Brown, both in management with Sunderland and Southend United respectively, feature heavily in the consortium’s plan and that the job of manager Lennon could come under scrutiny.





SO...


1. BWFC have rejected previous bids - the investors were actually interested, but couldn't guarantee not to asset strip
2. Gartside may go
3. Lennon may go
4. Fat Sam and Sun Tan possibly involved




What else can be said other than WOW!!!

Pointless story. I could have written that myself. I'm looking forward to iles next story where he explains that water is wet and fire is hot.

Well, you could say: "All that piece is is a rehash of the initial rumours without any new insight added and we're still waiting for the interesting revelations regarding the debt situation that Iles said would be in today's BN in one of his tweets yesterday."

....if you were a cynic like me.

Breadman wrote:Well, you could say: "All that piece is is a rehash of the initial rumours without any new insight added and we're still waiting for the interesting revelations regarding the debt situation that Iles said would be in today's BN in one of his tweets yesterday."

....if you were a cynic like me.

Agreed, don't know why I expected any different but I actually thought he may have some new insight into this.

Personally I think everything about the club, a takeover, and how we should spend future investment is all bollocks.

Somebody has to put money into the club - to make money but who will do that and how will they make their money back?

Davies clearly isn't pumping any money in - clearly he sees it as throwing more good money after bad.

The directors - who lets remember are in a fantastic position to know the financial position at the club and make a financial killing themselves if they can see an opportunity to do so - have more or less kept their hands in their pockets.

Who then from outside the club will stump up a reported £30 million to buy it, a reported extra £10 million a year to meet the current operational debt and a further say for arguments sake £10 million to invest in improving the playing staff in the January window (transfer fees and/or wages)?

That's £50 million invested more or less from day one, with NO return whatsoever and the investment!

What is the strategy to make money out of Bolton?

Clearly crowd attendance and shirt sales aren't making enough to keep the club afloat.

Neither is all this bollocks of investing in youth - how many home grown kids from any club actually make it? How many of them that do get sold on for enough to cover the cost of running the academy each year?

You're going to be lucky for the much vaunted youth policy - that every club as well as us are doing - actually adds a positive income stream to the club.

The only viable way to get a £50 million plus investment back is by being promoted to the Premier and do a Burnley - go up, spend no money, get relegated and bank on being promoted again inside a season or two, ad infinitum.

Who in the right minds have £50 million plus to take on a punt that they can achieve this with Bolton?

There are far easier and significantly less risky ventures to invest £50 million in than putting it all on the Bolton gamble.

So why then are people expressing interest at Bolton?

The only logical thing that comes to my mind is to buy the club as low as it can, sell off the assets to recover their costs and turn a profit and sod off with their money leaving the club to die.

It wouldn't be a first time this as happened in football either.

Bwfc1958 wrote:Pointless story. I could have written that myself. I'm looking forward to iles next story where he explains that water is wet and fire is hot.

Well it's the first time I've read that previous bids were rejected by the club on the grounds that the investors couldn't offer any guarantees about the future of the club i.e. that Gartside and ED require someone with the club's interest at heart. Up to now, I'd thought that the investors were the ones to have pulled out because we aren't worth investing in.

Also the first time that I've read that two ex-players who are currently working for other clubs would be involved in some capacity or other - although that seems complex given current contracts.

I think getting rid of Lennon is a tricky and not necessarily useful element especially as we wouldn't be able to get a replacement in for a while, but Gartside going would please a lot of fans.

Overall there's a lot to be commended about this bid, but we'll see what happens.

It doesn't say that BFS and Kid Sunbed will be involved though, does it?

It says that "initial reports suggested it" and all that means is, they were mentioned in the original piece on LoVS.

Which we all read last week.

So that's not new info, nor is it confirmation that the initial reports have any credence.

Come on, Lusty - Don't get all "Whittam" on us, read it properly.