Bolton Wanderers Supporters' Trust will not back down over Macron ACV order to 'safeguard the club’s

Ken putting more dirty washing out in public today.

Kane57 wrote:Ken putting more dirty washing out in public today.

I don't see it that way.

Simply looks like fair comment to me.

If the ST have an elected mandated approval from their membership about opposing the ACV then let them show it - otherwise it is just appearing to be a personal vendetta being held by those on the ST Board against him.

You simply can't purport to be acting as a public body representative of your members wishes if you haven't canvassed their opinion on the matter of removing the AVC.

It's not what you want that counts, it's what your members want that you represent and act on.

Note also the ST annual elections are now three months overdue (a quarter of a year already - only 9 months and reducing daily to the next one!)


From Anderson's statement today -

Reflecting on matters off the pitch, I have read the comments expressed by Daniel Izza, the chairman of the BWST, concerning the ACV which are of course disappointing, but not unexpected.
I have already expressed my views on this matter and won't be commenting any further at this time other than to say that l have received many expressions of support from Trust members and from what l have seen on social media, not all those involved in the Trust share Daniel’s opinions.
Hopefully, he consulted the members before submitting the application, although my experience to date has shown that this has not always been the case.
As it stands, l cannot see the club working in tandem and harmony with the Trust going forward, but we will continue to work with the Bolton Wanderers Supporters Association, who we have found to be far more supportive and helpful in trying to assist the club in its quest for financial stability and success on and off the field.

Full statement here on Nuts -

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

I'm an ST member and i don't remember being asked my opinion on whether we wanted an ACV? Any other ST members remember being asked?

It could just be as i tend to hardly read any of the emails they send now as i am very disillusioned with them as an organisation.

They don't ask anything.

Norpig wrote:I'm an ST member and i don't remember being asked my opinion on whether we wanted an ACV? Any other ST members remember being asked?

It could just be as i tend to hardly read any of the emails they send now as i am very disillusioned with them as an organisation.

I've emailed them on countless occasions with nothing back. It's sad really.

Forgive me for perhaps being a bit school 'teacherish' (is there such a word?) but I think one clear distinction needs to be pointed out.

The difference between Ken Anderson/BWFC - and Daniel Izza/the ST is that Mr A OWNS the club where as the ST is a public body who as such has an elected Board to represent it.

Therefore Ken Andersons voice IS BWFC's voice - and thus he can say whatever he wants to - that in effect is always going to be BWFC's position on things.

However the exact opposite is true of a public body like the ST, where it is the MEMBERS wishes that are represented by the Board - and not their own personal ones.

If the ST IS acting on the wishes of their membership majority - then fair enough - but seeing they've never had a voted on election and the half the current Board have already served 25% longer than the twelve months they were appointed for - then not only do I think they are acting outside of their authority but I also believe (under ultra vires) that any costs they incur whilst doing so they personally become liable for!

KA wants his cake and eat it. Over such a small detail as an AVC why play one BWFC group against another in public.
Ken's job is to keep the club running until he cashes in. 
He's washed his dirty laundry in public before with his spat with Holdsworth a few months ago, and was forced to admit that he's always took his own money back from the club as soon as he could.
You'll still make a good butty at the end Ken, no need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Tweet from Izza  replying to Iles tweet -

The ST will support the club.thesupporters and ST will outlast owners who come and go.The stadium is an important part of our community.

As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

wanderlust wrote:As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

As I keep pointing out - an ACV is NOT a protection - it merely delays things by 6 months and allows the ST to raise money to bid for the stadium - which even then, the owner can sell to whoever he likes - even if the ST had bid the most!

The ACV a potential sale into the public domain.

The negatives to the owner and prospective buyer are plentiful.

Hands up anyone who honestly believes the ST will ever be able to raise enough money to buy the stadium.

None.

So what are they trying to prove by opposing it?

Sluffy wrote:Tweet from Izza  replying to Iles tweet -

The ST will support the club.thesupporters and ST will outlast owners who come and go.The stadium is an important part of our community.

As an ST member  i don't support you as being in charge so fuck off will you?

It stops someone coming in with a view to a quick refinance so that's ok with me. What serious bidder would be put off by having to wait?

6 months is a long time to wait though and they could have their heads turned by another club in the meantime

Kane57 wrote:It stops someone coming in with a view to a quick refinance so that's ok with me. What serious bidder would be put off by having to wait?

The same bidder who will have to wait another 6 months to sell it when he wants/needs to - and so on for every perspective buyer after that.

Why buy anything at market rate when there is a constrain on it?

So you've proved the theory that there is nobody in it for the long term, except season ticket holders of course.

6 months could be the difference between staying up and going down. So its a big difference. 

Anyone who cant see that, well, thats on them.

If someone was to bid now for the club who had plenty of momey and could turn our fortunes round, theyd miss the opportunity as we would miss the January window.  Thats putting it in the simplest terms and like countless people have said on here, on twitter, facebook and other platforms, the members of the st didnt want it.  They also didnt want izza.  Yet they are stuck with both.

Won't the ST be in breach of "Trust" status as they are behind with their elections. A bit strong in my eyes considering the ST were moaning about the books being behind. And if there haven't been any elections then the Trust no longer exists. Perhaps they will pull the old excuse given to me last year that there was no need for elections as the members were co-opted onto the committee. And how can Bolton Council listen to a non-existent group with any impartiality. 
I have a 24 hour duty starting at six. I might while away the quiet hours by emailing Supporters Direct and asking for clarification on how a Trust can function without elections, thus also without a mandate and what powers  the ST can bring to bear on local authorities and the club itself.

You'll do well to get a reply. They've been pretty shit at that

Norpig wrote:6 months is a long time to wait though and they could have their heads turned by another club in the meantime

Of course but should Ken sell then I'd hope it goes to the right person, not just the first one.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:As we still don't know whether or not Anderson is trying to shaft the club for personal gain we have to take an objective perspective.

If he isn't trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place isn't going to make any substantial difference to the finances in the scheme of things and Anderson shouldn't be wasting the club's money on legal fees to try to have it removed.

But if he is trying to shaft the club, having an ACV in place is perhaps the only protection we have.
The more Anderson goes on about the ACV the less trustworthy he appears to be.

As I keep pointing out - an ACV is NOT a protection - it merely delays things by 6 months and allows the ST to raise money to bid for the stadium - which even then, the owner can sell to whoever he likes - even if the ST had bid the most!

The ACV a potential sale into the public domain.

The negatives to the owner and prospective buyer are plentiful.

Hands up anyone who honestly believes the ST will ever be able to raise enough money to buy the stadium.

None.

So what are they trying to prove by opposing it?

Any sale of the ground would mean BWFC being held to ransom by the new owners, incurring long term debt and cost and I can't see a single good reason for Anderson wanting to bring that situation about.

Try looking at it down the other end of the telescope i.e why is Anderson so keen to spend the club's money (not his) on getting to a position where he can sell our ground - as opposed to managing his way out of our current position without stripping the club's assets even further and building the fixed cost base.

And i think that given 6 months,  the ST with the support of the Council could raise the requisite money and in that respect they are just another potential bidder that would provide competition in a bidding war - which would be the best scenario for the club.

In fact as of this moment the ST/Council have the most money of any potential buyer because Anderson doesn't have a buyer.

Unless of course his motivation to have the AV removed is to sell the Macron to Inner Circle for a fiver and then rent it back to BWFC at half a million a year.

I'm sure the ST could raise a tenner and outbid him, but whatever scam he tries to pull, the ACV will provide some degree of keeping him in check.