Bolton Wanderers Fans Forum

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Takeovers - why not us?

Takeovers - why not us?

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

31 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 15:55

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
boltonbonce wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A bit rich coming from you Bonce.

32 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 15:57

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
scratch

33 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 16:06

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
You think (or pretend to think) I'm wrong about the ST and post that I'm obsessed like Captain Ahab every time I make any reference to them.

You also think I'm wrong about banning Bread and hardly post on here since because of that, even though you clearly enjoy yourself on Nuts and everybody else wants you to keep posting.

34 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 16:18

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
time for a lie down and take one of your tablets Sluffy you're getting all worked up again  Very Happy

35 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 16:44

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:time for a lie down and take one of your tablets Sluffy you're getting all worked up again  Very Happy

Thanks for your concern but I'm not on medication just yet.

To answer one of your earlier posts I am always happy to acknowledge when I get things wrong, I'm certainly not perfect and have apologised loads of times on Nuts over the years, so it certainly isn't any ego on my part to not acknowledge when I'm in the wrong.

Anyone can have an opinion but when that opinion clashes with reality surely then it is more than likely to be wrong - agreed?

There's nothing wrong or embarrassing for an opinion not to be proved correct but to continue the façade by claiming all sorts of weird and wonderful scenarios (some even directly contradicting stuff you had said earlier) is clearly bloody minded, stupid, or simply deliberate trolling.

And it is not me that is doing this.

So I am certainly not conceited enough to be an egotist, unlike some.

36 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 16:53

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
All my comments to you on this thread were meant as a joke Sluffy  but your radar is off these days.

Your constant baiting of Lusty and now Boncey for some strange reason does you or your website no favours

37 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 16:58

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:All my comments to you on this thread were meant as a joke Sluffy  but your radar is off these days.

Your constant baiting of Lusty and now Boncey for some strange reason does you or your website no favours

I'm baiting nobody mate.

I'm just telling it as it is.


38 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 16:59

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:You think (or pretend to think) I'm wrong about the ST and post that I'm obsessed like Captain Ahab every time I make any reference to them.

You also think I'm wrong about banning Bread and hardly post on here since because of that, even though you clearly enjoy yourself on Nuts and everybody else wants you to keep posting.
I'm getting tired of explaining myself with regard to the ST.
My views on the ST aren't,in fact,that much different to yours. The fun I had at your expense was because of your attitude toward them.
Anything they tried was wrong. I'm sure if they discovered a cure for blindness,you'd berate them for the disastrous effect they'd had on employment prospects in the white stick industry.
As for Breadman,yes,I,and a number of others,would prefer him to be giving it large on here,but his absence has nothing to do with the frequency of my posts.
I'm having some personal issues to deal with,and I'm posting when I can,so let's cut out this bollocks about sulking.
You really must calm down,and stop taking this so seriously.
Buy yourself some slippers.
I promise never to call you Captain Ahab again. king

39 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 17:29

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
boltonbonce wrote:
Sluffy wrote:You think (or pretend to think) I'm wrong about the ST and post that I'm obsessed like Captain Ahab every time I make any reference to them.

You also think I'm wrong about banning Bread and hardly post on here since because of that, even though you clearly enjoy yourself on Nuts and everybody else wants you to keep posting.
I'm getting tired of explaining myself with regard to the ST.
My views on the ST aren't,in fact,that much different to yours. The fun I had at your expense was because of your attitude toward them.
Anything they tried was wrong. I'm sure if they discovered a cure for blindness,you'd berate them for the disastrous effect they'd had on employment prospects in the white stick industry.
As for Breadman,yes,I,and a number of others,would prefer him to be giving it large on here,but his absence has nothing to do with the frequency of my posts.
I'm having some personal issues to deal with,and I'm posting when I can,so let's cut out this bollocks about sulking.
You really must calm down,and stop taking this so seriously.
Buy yourself some slippers.
I promise never to call you Captain Ahab again. king

I'm sorry to hear that you have been having personal issues and I'm sure everybody would wish with me that things work out speedily and favourably for you.

I know you shared similar views to myself on the ST (that's why I put it in brackets in my post above) but sometimes the joke goes on for far too long - and if you say the same thing enough times some people start to believe it to be true.

Same goes with jokes from others also, sometimes you need to put the record straight otherwise people start to believe the jokes to be real too.

As for Bread he can come back on Nuts anytime he wants providing he drops his agendas.  I know you've passed on the message and he's declined but the offer still stands.

I've yet to have anything said or done to me on the many internet forums I've been on over the years to actually trouble me in real life so as I'm apparently noted for saying - I don't take it seriously - never have, never will.

I look forward to you resolving your real life issues and resuming your enjoyment of Nuts because clearly the site is much better with you than without you.

40 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 17:35

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Cheers Sluffy,your kind thoughts are appreciated.
I should add that my personal issues don't involve leg shaving. Shocked

41 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Wed Sep 13 2017, 18:12

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
And all is well in the Nuts world again  Very Happy

42 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Sep 14 2017, 22:53

wessy

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Just for the record as Brucie would say "Bonce" your my favourite poster

43 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Sep 14 2017, 23:19

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wessy wrote:Just for the record as Brucie would say "Bonce" your my favourite poster

Oh dear, Natasha's not going to be happy about that!

Very Happy

44 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Fri Sep 15 2017, 05:40

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
wessy wrote:Just for the record as Brucie would say "Bonce" your my favourite poster
Thanks Wessy,but I fear,as Sluffy says,a death threat could be heading your way.

Nat bears grudges. Laughing

45 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Tue Oct 17 2017, 12:43

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Even the bloody pie eaters are in the verge of being bought by rich owners! Why would anyone in their right mind buy them when they could have us?

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

46 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Tue Oct 17 2017, 12:58

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Norpig wrote:Even the bloody pie eaters are in the verge of being bought by rich owners! Why would anyone in their right mind buy them when they could have us?

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

47 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Tue Oct 17 2017, 13:50

Bread2.0

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
And they have no debt.

48 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Tue Oct 17 2017, 14:41

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
But it's still Wigan and their crap support, the figure quoted on the link was £20 million, for not much more they could buy us. We have a better fanbase for one.

49 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Tue Oct 17 2017, 15:54

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Wigan have been more successful than us in recent years though - they won the FA Cup only 4 years ago, but the key thing is the ground is also home to the Warriors. They get a crowd every week whereas the Macron is only used when we are at home so all their assets (including staff, parking, catering, shop) are worked better and is therefore a much more viable business from an investor perspective. They also have the top class training facilities that we sold them.
They are worth £20 million in actual assets whereas the only assets we own have been used as collateral for Toadface's borrowing and cannot be sold - apart from the ones the ACV protects for now.

Begs the question that if an investor wanted to buy BWFC, what would they get for their money?



Last edited by wanderlust on Tue Oct 17 2017, 16:01; edited 1 time in total

50 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Tue Oct 17 2017, 16:00

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
all well and good BUT IT'S STILL BLOODY WIGAN  Laughing

51 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Tue Oct 17 2017, 16:02

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Norpig wrote:all well and good BUT IT'S STILL BLOODY WIGAN  Laughing
Richer and worth a lot more than BWFC Wigan that is.

52 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 10:20

MartinBWFC

avatar
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
According to Iles, Anderson in talks with two credible investors, all a bit vague but something in it as Anderson has finally admitted he's for selling.

53 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 10:54

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
MartinBWFC wrote:According to Iles, Anderson in talks with two credible investors, all a bit vague but something in it as Anderson has finally admitted he's for selling.
Yeah - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

54 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 11:05

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Exclusive: Two foreign bidders in talks over £25m sale of Bolton Wanderers

Ken Anderson has confirmed ongoing talks with “credible” investors over the sale of shares in Bolton Wanderers.

Groups from the Far East and Eastern Europe have emerged as strong contenders to invest since The Bolton News made public a document produced by the club, valuing ownership at £25million.

Several US private equity investors are also understood to have made contact hoping to pick up a bargain in the Championship and take it to the next level.

“Since that has come out into the open I would say we have probably had the best three options I have had since I have been here,” Anderson told The Bolton News. “When we were previously in the Championship I’d had maybe two enquiries a month, now we are fielding four or five. Two options are particularly credible and talks are ongoing.”

Ken Anderson has confirmed ongoing talks with “credible” investors over the sale of shares in Bolton Wanderers.

Groups from the Far East and Eastern Europe have emerged as strong contenders to invest since The Bolton News made public a document produced by the club, valuing ownership at £25million.

Several US private equity investors are also understood to have made contact hoping to pick up a bargain in the Championship and take it to the next level.

“Since that has come out into the open I would say we have probably had the best three options I have had since I have been here,” Anderson told The Bolton News. “When we were previously in the Championship I’d had maybe two enquiries a month, now we are fielding four or five. Two options are particularly credible and talks are ongoing.”

“For £25m, I’d say it is a good entry price for anyone serious about buying a football club. And one thing which has come across is conversations we have had with investors, particularly in the US, is that they see this is a cheap way of getting to the Premier League.

“You can do that in a number of ways – throw a lot of money into it, as someone like Mel Morris has done at Derby, or do it like Huddersfield, who did it relatively cheaply.”

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

55 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 11:06

Bread2.0

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
He's getting desperate.

It's pretty much an admission that he can't afford to keep the club afloat after Jan 1st.

Stormy seas ahead......

56 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 11:13

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Need to make sure whoever takes over is fully vetted and can actually afford to take the club forward.
Not sure i like the sound of American equity firms being involved as it will be all about the numbers and seeing how much cash they can make out of us.

57 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 11:51

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Norpig wrote:Need to make sure whoever takes over is fully vetted and can actually afford to take the club forward.
Why start now?

58 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 11:53

Maurice Greene


David Ngog
David Ngog
Bread2.0 wrote:He's getting desperate.

It's pretty much an admission that he can't afford to keep the club afloat after Jan 1st.

Stormy seas ahead......

You've obviously not read the full article, which Karly has cut down.

And while the Wanderers chairman has put in place his own plans to fund the club into the January window and beyond – considering the addition of three or four new players – he admits outside investment is a must if it is to challenge with the division’s financial heavyweights.

“This club has got a fantastic infrastructure, stadium, hotel, training ground and conference facilities – it is a 365-day-a-year operation and it is Premier League standard,” he said.

“If I was a billionaire I’d take Bolton Wanderers to the next level, which is pretty much what is happening at Wolves. Investing in players, and particularly strikers who tend to cost the most, is a very expensive business."

Sounds like a reasonable account of the situation rather than desperation.

59 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 12:08

Bread2.0

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
I did read the whole thing and it's actually the second paragraph that you quote there which leads me to believe that he's floundering and won't be able (or more likely isn't willing) to carry on beyond the new year.

60 Re: Takeovers - why not us? on Thu Oct 19 2017, 12:13

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
wanderlust wrote:
Norpig wrote:Need to make sure whoever takes over is fully vetted and can actually afford to take the club forward.
Why start now?
 We have to start sometime, now would be good  Very Happy

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

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