Bolton Wanderers Fans Forum

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » In ken we trust - or not

In ken we trust - or not

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Ken, saint, sinner or undecided

63% 63% [ 15 ]
13% 13% [ 3 ]
24% 24% [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 24

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

31 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 15:23

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
boltonbonce wrote:
y2johnny wrote:But do you beleive everything wrote about him by the trust, iles and lov
No. But the facts I've quoted are enough to give me concern.
Hence,my lack of trust.
These aren't allegations,they're facts.

I would think that anybody with Anderson's past record would be a 'marked man' so to speak, someone to be extra vigilant about if you are the regulators who oversee compliance of the rules and regs.

I can't believe a) that he believes he can get up to something dodgy whilst being in this spot light and b) that even in the remotest possibility that he might, that the EFL wouldn't be on to him immediately!

It's the quiet ones that are the worst they say, and Anderson with his previous 'rap sheet' of misdemeanours is certainly in the public eye!

The odds are highly stacked that he is doing nothing fiscally illegal at BWFC imo otherwise why has both the people with the greatest debt in the club (Davies and the liquidator in respect of BM) plus the sports governing authority (EFL), all continue to work happily with him?

If Davies, the liquidator and EFL (all who deal with the man and his books on an ongoing basis), continue to monitor and trust him then why can't people who have never met the bloke and apparently believe negative gossip about him on social media, don't?

I rather deal in current reality than conjecture personally or something (bad) that happened a decade ago.
This is an interesting turn of events. I had assumed Johnny and Sluffy knew about his track record as I thought it was brought up at the time he bought into the club and that Iles etc were simply regurgitating old concerns.

There are several reasons why the EFL and the numerous creditors including Eddie and the Warby's have tolerated him and will continue to deal with him including the fact that the last thing they (lifetime supporters) want to happen is for our historic club to go down the pan - which it would if they called in the debts - and that with all creditors Anderson can always play the "eff off or I'll run the club into the ground and you'll get nothing" card.

And seeing as he's taken control of nett assets worth in the region of £43 million (in 2016) for peanuts, and has absolute power over a now impotent Board, he can do pretty much what he wants.

Perhaps the EFL is prepared to trust him enough to lift the embargo?  :yeahright:

The fact is that the club's fate is in the hands of a man who has history of pocketing the company's money and that's not something to be thrilled about, even if you're halfway up his duodenum.

What the fuck are you on about - have you been drinking?

Of course I know (presumably Johnny too) about Anderson's history - that is the whole point behind my last post on this thread!!!

As for the embargo we've already brought in one more player than the maximum allowed under their new rules - which seems to suggest the EFL must think he's doing something right!

Good of you to show your homophobic colours though.

Quite frankly I'm not surprised either.


Ignoring your moronic rant for the moment, your last post isn't consistent with what you've previously written on this topic.

32 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 15:26

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:Easy Sluffy saying Lusty is homophobic is a bit of a reach! He just means we are all too blinkered to believe KA would use the club as a cash cow and strip us bare. I can see his point but i'm nowhere near as suspicious as Lusty  Very Happy

He's stated that I was up someone else's arse.

That's an homophobic remark - whether said in jest or not.

These days it is unacceptable and he should fully well know this.

Yet he still went ahead to write and posted it.

33 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 15:27

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Come on Sluffy we all still use that term about work colleagues for example, i wouldn't take it as a homophobic slur to be honest.

34 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 15:40

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:Come on Sluffy we all still use that term about work colleagues for example, i wouldn't take it as a homophobic slur to be honest.

I'm sure you wouldn't.

But times change and the things I/we said years ago are now no longer acceptable.

We've got to move with the times or risk being branded as racists, homophobics or misogynists.

Maybe you should stop using that phrase too especially if you are around much younger colleagues who are more PC aware and concerned than we were at their age.

35 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 15:41

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Thanks for the lecture Dad  Rolling Eyes

36 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 15:49

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Norpig wrote:Thanks for the lecture Dad  Rolling Eyes

It was meant as sound advice to a friend - particularly one working in the public sector.

Feel free to ignore it but I bet you won't.

We both know how PC the public sector has become.




37 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 16:03

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
i appreciate the advice but the delivery was a bit condescending to be honest

38 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 16:11

terenceanne

avatar
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
I expect KA to stabilize the club then sell it on for some number of millions in his own pocket. Probably a nice pick up for two years work. It's just business, not personal.....to quote the Godfather Smile

It's been good for the club and will be better once sold to somebody who actually has a pot to piss in.

Of course interested buyers might be put off with the prospects of relegation.

39 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 16:12

Norpig

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
and we're back on topic, i agree TA

40 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 16:15

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I can't even see the homophobic slur.

Does this make me 100% gay or 100% straight?

41 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 16:16

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
John McGinlay
John McGinlay
Bi-sexual I think

42 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 16:20

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
BoltonTillIDie wrote:Bi-sexual I think

Don't tell Cecil.

43 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 17:58

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Nat really is a mixed bag. Laughing

44 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 18:02

Kane57

avatar
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
terenceanne wrote:I expect KA to stabilize the club then sell it on for some number of millions in his own pocket. Probably a nice pick up for two years work. It's just business, not personal.....to quote the Godfather Smile

It's been good for the club and will be better once sold to somebody who actually has a pot to piss in.

Of course interested buyers might be put off with the prospects of relegation.


That'll be why the deal is close then, or so I'm told

45 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 18:13

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Kane57 wrote:That'll be why the deal is close then, or so I'm told

Was it Ten Bobsworths who told you?

46 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 18:21

Kane57

avatar
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
In his dreams

47 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 18:23

MartinBWFC

avatar
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Kane57 wrote:In his dreams
Ah pillow talk, nice one on coming out on here.

48 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 18:28

Kane57

avatar
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Nothing to be ashamed of

49 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 22:11

Reebok Trotter

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Natasha Whittam wrote:
Kane57 wrote:That'll be why the deal is close then, or so I'm told

Was it Ten Bobsworths who told you?

If you ask me, Ten Bobsworth seems to talk a lot of sense. He comes across as someone who deals in facts rather than fiction. Having read his posts I can tell he doesn't do supposition. As Gil Grissom would say, the facts cannot lie.

50 Re: In ken we trust - or not on Tue Sep 05 2017, 22:18

y2johnny

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Reebok Trotter wrote:
Natasha Whittam wrote:
Kane57 wrote:That'll be why the deal is close then, or so I'm told

Was it Ten Bobsworths who told you?

If you ask me, Ten Bobsworth seems to talk a lot of sense. He comes across as someone who deals in facts rather than fiction. Having read his posts I can tell he doesn't do supposition. As Gil Grissom would say, the facts cannot lie.
:like:

http://Www.thefacefittester.co.uk

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

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

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