You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Blu Marble

Blu Marble

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1 Blu Marble on Wed Jun 27 2018, 01:04

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
I know there is a bit of a general feeling of underwhelment at the signing of Donaldson but I thought I'd put it into context a little by reminding us all that the agreement we have with Blu Marble is to repay them £4 million plus £300,000 interest by the 1st September.

I don't want to be a wet blanket or anything but we are going to be struggling financially again this season (unless someone wants to invest in us) and we won't be going mad on who we will be bringing in.

I guess the aim is to bring just enough quality to get us through the season and stay up.

Once the 2019/20 season starts we should by then have hopefully paid off Blu Marble and Brett Warburton, and finally got rid of Amos stupid wages - but we have to get there first.

We will though - onwards and upwards and all that!

Very Happy

2 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 07:09

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Shouldn't be a problem for a man of Ken's means.

The Anderson family has bought a swanky Knightsbridge restaurant and set up another company in the name of another. Boulestin St James, in case you were interested. He's come a long from being banned as a Director in 2011.

3 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 10:32

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Shouldn't be a problem for a man of Ken's means.

The Anderson family has bought a swanky Knightsbridge restaurant and set up another company in the name of another. Boulestin St James, in case you were interested. He's come a long from being banned as a Director in 2011.

I would hazard a guess he was doing very well before his banning as well.

He doesn't live in Switzerland and have a little pad in Monaco and all the other bits a pieces of that style of living without having a few bob behind him.

I did have a look at the company (link below) and it looks as though it is his wife Patricia and his son(?) Ross who are the directors of this business and three others also - which seeing that they state their occupations are 'restaurateurs' - I presume are also eateries.

I don't see any problem with him or his family making a success of their life's though.

I certainly don't blame him for running BWFC as a business rather than a plaything.  He's here to make money out of the club rather than throw a large chunk of his life savings (and Lee's inheritance) down a black hole on some sort of ego trip - such as Eddie Davies and numerous other club owners with surplus money to burn have.

I don't get this anti-Andersonish stance that a minority of hardliners still hold, what axe do you/they hold about him?  Is it because he's running the club to be self sustainable, is it because he's not failed and fallen flat on his face, or is it because he's not plundered the club and left it for dead as many predicted he would?

No flippant reply please, what exactly is your beef with him - pm me if you don't want to say publicly - I'm genuinely interested.


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

4 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 11:28

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Shouldn't be a problem for a man of Ken's means.

The Anderson family has bought a swanky Knightsbridge restaurant and set up another company in the name of another. Boulestin St James, in case you were interested. He's come a long from being banned as a Director in 2011.

I would hazard a guess he was doing very well before his banning as well.

He doesn't live in Switzerland and have a little pad in Monaco and all the other bits a pieces of that style of living without having a few bob behind him.

I did have a look at the company (link below) and it looks as though it is his wife Patricia and his son(?) Ross who are the directors of this business and three others also - which seeing that they state their occupations are 'restaurateurs' - I presume are also eateries.

I don't see any problem with him or his family making a success of their life's though.

I certainly don't blame him for running BWFC as a business rather than a plaything.  He's here to make money out of the club rather than throw a large chunk of his life savings (and Lee's inheritance) down a black hole on some sort of ego trip - such as Eddie Davies and numerous other club owners with surplus money to burn have.

I don't get this anti-Andersonish stance that a minority of hardliners still hold, what axe do you/they hold about him?  Is it because he's running the club to be self sustainable, is it because he's not failed and fallen flat on his face, or is it because he's not plundered the club and left it for dead as many predicted he would?

No flippant reply please, what exactly is your beef with him - pm me if you don't want to say publicly - I'm genuinely interested.


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

It's way too early to come to a conclusion either way about KAs handling of the finances as we have no knowledge as to what extent he is using his own money or as to what extent he is using assets to secure funding. If we assume that he is doing well and using his own money then fine, but it's a risky assumption to make and a bit of healthy cynicism is justifiable until the facts come to light which they will eventually. That's not an "anti - Anderson" stance - just fence-sitting until we know more.

5 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 12:03

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
It's way too early to come to a conclusion either way about KAs handling of the finances as we have no knowledge as to what extent he is using his own money or as to what extent he is using assets to secure funding. If we assume that he is doing well and using his own money then fine, but it's a risky assumption to make and a bit of healthy cynicism is justifiable until the facts come to light which they will eventually. That's not an "anti - Anderson" stance - just fence-sitting until we know more.

Seeing that you commonly referred to Ken Anderson on here as 'Twatface' not that long ago I'll take your views with a pinch of salt.

I run my own business (miniscule to BWFC in comparison admittedly) but the same principles apply in that I would never put my personal wealth and assets at risk whilst I had assets I could utilise from the business itself - it would be madness to prop up a failing business by throwing my life savings and my house into it and possibly lose the lot - that is the very reason companies are set up as having 'Limited' liability - and in any event he's not even been having to borrow against club assets anyway.

As for 'facts coming to light' we have already seen the up to date accounts of the club covering the time Anderson has been in charge of it and can see currently via Companies House if the club as had any new charges set against assets - and surprise, surprise all seems good.

Of course the uncertainty of the financial position is that the accountants are unable to sign them off as a going concern but so to was the last position under the Davies regime and all annual accounts since.

The initial response to this was the games governing body the EFL put us under embargo and monitored our financial position - suffice to say that they are more than happy with the security and financial resources of the club owner Mr Anderson, that we are now free of such sanctions anymore.

Similarly it seems Mr Anderson has agreed a personal bond with HMRC to ensure the clubs taxes are guaranteed to be paid.

So if the accounts are in the public domain, that there are no new charges against the clubs assets since Holdsworth's BluMarble debacle, that the games governing body and Her Majesty's Tax Inspectors are ALL happy to let Mr Anderson run his club LEGALLY (trading when insolvent can lead to imprisonment!), then what makes you think you know better than all of the people who have actually seen the books, whilst you of course haven't?

You're not sitting on the fence at all - you clearly have jumped on the Anti-Anderson bandwagon right from the start and like the rest of them are waiting against hope that he scarpers with the petty cash or something so you can say you were right all along and 'told us so'.

6 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 13:54

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
What was it about my post that sounded antagonistic towards him? I genuinely don't care either way. Quite happy to be in the 'don't dislike, don't like' camp

7 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 14:23

Growler


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
What I don't like is that Ken's ambition for the football team is to finish 4th bottom of the 2nd tier.I don't think that's good enough for Bolton.

8 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 14:42

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:What was it about my post that sounded antagonistic towards him? I genuinely don't care either way.

Well I doubt that you yourself have been digging around to find out what the Anderson family has been doing recently and which is unconnected to the club but someone has and that someone obviously feels that you have an interest in such stuff and shared it with you.

You in turn clearly thought to mention it on here - thank you.

I read into you posting something up about him buying 'a swanky Knightsbridge restaurant' and setting up a business for another, together with your comment about settling the £4.3 million BluMarble loan falling due at the end of next month, indicative of that he's rolling in cash - or is that not what you were saying?

If so aren't you then implying he should both settle the BluMarble loan AND splash his cash on bringing in much better players than what we've brought in already and are currently (apparently) looking at?  That if so would imply criticism of him does it not?  Also why once again dredge up old history about him being banned from being a Director - he's been one legally for the last two years?  Which again made me think you were only posting to have a little pop at him

Of course like any other fan I would like to see my club owner buy the best team we could possibly get but I can and do accept that Anderson is here to run the club as a business so he can turn himself a profit on it - like most people do in the real world away from football.

Fwiw, just because people are wealthy doesn't mean they have easy access to liquid assets (their money could be tied up in land or property say) nor that them being Directors in a company meaning they own it (Directors are appointed by those who do own the company to keep an eye on it for them).  I don't doubt though the KA could find £4.3 easily enough if he wanted to and that his wife and son are probably representing his interests as owner (or part owner) in the 'swanky' restaurants.

Good luck to him and his family I say.

They aren't into Bolton to throw their life savings and Lee's inheritance down into some massive black hole for their ego's sake (that didn't work very well for Eddie Davies - or the club - in any event did it?) they are simply businesspeople doing business in a legal and proper way - at least the EPL nor HMRC seem to be thinking so.

And if that is the case (which I truly believe it is) then what really is so bad about that?

Hence why I can't get my head around the hardcore anti-Andersons and would like to hear how they see things.



9 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 14:58

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:What I don't like is that Ken's ambition for the football team is to finish 4th bottom of the 2nd tier.I don't think that's good enough for Bolton.

I'd like us to win the Champions League within the next five years but how is that going to happen unless we can afford to buy better players and pay them silly amounts of money?

So if we haven't got the money coming into the club we have to live within our means and consequently manage our expectations.

Until Holdsworth's BluMarble loan is off our backs and Amos wages off our books then we don't have much money to build a team capable of storming the league we are in this season, so staying in it would be our first priority.

Hopefully we can do much better than fourth bottom anyway but no point in having unreasonable expectations, nor being overly negative either.

10 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 15:05

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Probably worth asking the hardcore ones then

11 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 15:06

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy, are you on the BWFC payroll?

12 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 15:30

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Probably worth asking the hardcore ones then

Fair enough except non of them post on here and several of them have blocked me on twitter even though I've never spoken to them ever in my life - they've blocked me presumably because they have read my views on here and or W/ways.

I've even repeatedly offered a platform for representatives to have a public debate here on Nuts, to get their views out into the public - I've even offered to stand aside so as to allow them free reign without any interference to do so - but have been continually blanked by them.

When people avoid having a debate it seems to suggest to me they've not got much of a case to argue apart from holding their own prejudices.

The offer still stands if anyone has conviction enough in their own views to do so.

13 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 15:31

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Sluffy, are you on the BWFC payroll?

I can't be as I never go as you point out from time to time, remember?

14 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 15:38

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I can't be as I never go as you point out from time to time, remember?


You just seem very pro-Anderson, which is fine, but your vitriol towards those who don't share your view seems a little over the top.

15 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 16:01

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I can't be as I never go as you point out from time to time, remember?


You just seem very pro-Anderson, which is fine, but your vitriol towards those who don't share your view seems a little over the top.

I don't consider myself to be either pro-Anderson or being nasty to the anti-Anderson's I simply tell it the way I see it.

Anderson has a history of being banned as a director - we know that - so wouldn't you think the EFL, HMRC and the liquidator for Holdsworth company that held his half of the clubs ownership know that as well - and if all of them (who must have seen the books and his business plans) think he is ok to run the club, then why do the still hardcore anti-Anderson's think they know better?

That's all I'm saying and all I've ever said in the past.

It's up to Anderson to run BWFC (his company remember) in a whatever way he sees fit within the law and until someone can point out he's not been doing so - and don't forget we've had the sports governing body, the taxman and two separate firms of auditors look at what he's been doing so far - then where's the problem?

And that's why I ask someone/anyone to explain why there is such an anti-Anderson hardcore remaining and what their issues are?  

Seems a reasonable thing to ask don't you think?

If they've got something bad on Anderson shouldn't someone have said something to the proper authority by now - Anderson after all has been here two years now - and wouldn't you think the auditors, the taxman and the sports governing body would have spotted it by now?

So what exactly is their beef?

Does anyone even know anymore - even them?

16 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 16:16

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
The two posters you claim are ‘hardcore anti-Anderson’ have both posted on this thread saying they’re on the fence about him. So on that basis I don’t think there’s anyone to answer your question.

17 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 16:26

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:The two posters you claim are ‘hardcore anti-Anderson’ have both posted on this thread saying they’re on the fence about him. So on that basis I don’t think there’s anyone to answer your question.

Well I've never claimed either Wanderlust or Chris to be 'hardcore' anti-Anderson's, the first I doubt knowing anyone who is but the second certainly having contacts with some with his past links to the LoV (where one of their bloggers even has 'Anderson's out' emblazoned as his twitter 'handle' - or at least he did at the time he decided to block me) and the ST.

There are however plenty of them that read Nuts and have even posted incognito on here, to know that my question as been seen by them.

I won't be holding my breath for a reply to it though.

18 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 16:34

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Probably worth posing your question on Twitter then if you’re actually interested in getting an answer. Bit of an echo chamber on here at times.

19 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 17:03

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Probably worth losing your question on Twitter then if you’re actually interested in getting an answer. Bit of an echo chamber on here at times.

Twitters fine for catching the latest news but that's about it as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't really expect an answer from the real hardliners - like I've said I've been blocked by a number of them, nearly all because of what I've posted on the Nuts forum and not because I've been in conversation over their views on Anderson via twitter - so if they've burned down the bridge of communication before I've even got there so to speak, then I don't really expect them to crawl out of the woodwork on here and give me chapter and verse.

To be honest I don't think they know any more why they are so hardcore anti-Anderson's themselves anymore.

It's clear that the ST wanted ownership of the club - indeed Supporters Direct, the parent body of all ST's states as much in its own statement of being -


What is the purpose of SD?
SD’s mission is to promote sustainable spectator sports clubs based on community ownership and supporter involvement.

We offer help to Clubs interested in becoming community owned and supporters interested in forming a Supporters Trust at their Club.

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

I could understand them not wanting anybody else blocking their path to the club particularly someone who had been banned from being a director in the past.

Many I guess such as Wanderlust may have thought Anderson was some sort of an asset stripper and turn against him - but time as clearly proved he's not.

Some of those blessed with little common sense or who are highly immature probably haven't/can't grasp that Anderson isn't here to spunk away his family fortune on Bolton but rather to turn the club around from the financial mess it was in and sell it on for a profit - and this is about where we are up to now I guess.

So apart from self interest or being totally dumb or childish, then I can't think of any reasonable reasons why such an anti-Anderson hardcore still persists.

Just my opinion on things and I would be happy to hear from anyone who has any reasonable reasons otherwise.

Not that I really expect anyone to give one - but you never know if you don't ask.

20 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 17:16

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Probably worth losing your question on Twitter then if you’re actually interested in getting an answer. Bit of an echo chamber on here at times.

Twitters fine for catching the latest news but that's about it as far as I'm concerned.

I thought you got into an argument with a LOV writer on twitter? So surely you use it for more than news?

If that’s where the anti Anderson fans are, then surely you’re wasting your time posting all of this on here?

21 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 17:50

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Probably worth losing your question on Twitter then if you’re actually interested in getting an answer. Bit of an echo chamber on here at times.

Twitters fine for catching the latest news but that's about it as far as I'm concerned.

I thought you got into an argument with a LOV writer on twitter? So surely you use it for more than news?

If that’s where the anti Anderson fans are, then surely you’re wasting your time posting all of this on here?

No not really - I simply asked Nixon to retweet Natasha's brilliant Behind Enemy Lines Special and he said he did not think it right to do so taking the piss out of fans who had been relegated.

Whilst I was composing a reply saying fair enough but it wasn't taking the piss out of the fans who were relegated but more having a laugh with all football fans as most of us had experienced relegation ourselves and it was just sharing the gallows humour rather than gloating or anything.

In between times some bloke (who turned out to be a kid who blogs for LoV) had toadied up to Nixon sharing his disgust at Natasha's article.

I asked him had he actually read the article as clearly that was not what it was about.

He clearly hadn't but instead of putting his hand up and admitting to a little porky he decided to dig a hole for himself instead saying he had read it.

I pointed out the universal praise that it had received on all the other places I had posted up the article (Iles had even RT-ed it - fair play to him) and told him I didn't believe for one moment that he had read it.

I even told him his own site the LoV had retweeted and he should read how well their own twitter followers were loving it!

He then blocked me.

As for wasting my time posting it on here, not at all.  It's been read (or will have been) by a vast majority of them by tomorrow lunch.  If they want to debate things they are more than welcome but we all know from a great deal of past experience they won't.

I don't believe anyone of them as a single valid reason between them all.

Otherwise they would have been singing it from the roof tops a long, long time ago.

22 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 19:10

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Just stumbled on this link, seems I'm not the only one shaking their head at the hardcore anti-Andersons!

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

For those of you who don't have twitter a Bolton blog site called 'Trotters Blog' called out one of the anti-Andersons 'Martin Howell' for a tweet he made showing a picture of Lee Anderson and implying quite obviously that he was taking illegal drugs, as well as some childish name calling.

The original tweet being here -

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

To be fair most people who replied to the tweet posted in support of Lee Anderson and what his dad had done for the club.  Of course a few posted to carry on the abuse of LA including a prolific anti-Anderson poster 'Philip Shortland' (who in my opinion posts on the Bolton News comments section as 'Suffolkwhite) and someone called Stan Bartolome who people may know better as Breadman.

Going back to the Trotters Block tweet both Phil and Bread turned up again (Bread of course still posting angrily about Brexit - no change there then).

'Gaz Crompton' now posting as GC(hash sign)Bwfc another prolific anti-Anderson poster also making a guest appearance.

I would like to praise Trotters blog for not only raising the issue but also handling these ungratefuls  so well - praise also to the few others standing behind Trotters Blog against these anti-Anderson's and their utterly childish antics and name callings.

I noticed that the more smarter anti-Anderson's keep well out of the way of such shenanigans but they still keep the company of those that do.

23 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 19:39

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
If you didn’t keep banning Breadman, you’d have someone to debate this with.

24 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 19:54

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Honestly Sluffy your replies are borderline unbearable. They're just so unnecessarily long

25 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 20:13

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:If you didn’t keep banning Breadman, you’d have someone to debate this with.

He plays to the audience.

He was never an anti-Andersonist as such on here but chummed up to some Supporters Trust types and started to spout that line to get his feet under the table with them and because they both didn't have very much time for me.

26 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 20:15

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Honestly Sluffy your replies are borderline unbearable. They're just so unnecessarily long

Don't read them then, I won't be offended.



27 Re: Blu Marble on Sun Jul 01 2018, 23:53

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Maybe this tweet gives some insight as to why one hardcore anti-Anderson is how he is about things?

The tweet comes half way down a long conversation from 'Martin Howell' with someone 'Ste Jenkins' calling him out on things - taken from this tweet -

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


The facts are there for all to see, they have lied through their back teeth and continue to-do so, on 01/09 there is a very large bill to settle that KA stated would be paid in 2017 it remains unpaid and unless investment happens prior will remain so, likely embargo again

He said he would repay the blue marble loan he hasn't,  he stated he would never take a wage ! He has. He told everyone his son was not on the payroll,  he lied. He is, all items in the accounts. He said he would pay the o/s bonuses he hasn't, I could go on...



Well I'm not sure what the very large bill to pay in 2017 is referring to but in simple terms there are only four major loans currently outstanding, Eddie Davies 'soft' loan that is only repayable if we meet set targets such as reaching the Premier League in the next couple of years - so that won't be happening soon will it?  The second loan (which is outstanding) is to Brett Warburton but is just awaiting the sale of some unrequired land and both parties Mr Warburton and the club are happy for this to take place in due course.  The third loan is to the millionaire owners of the Middlebrook Retail Park, Peel Holdings, whose owner is an avid Wanderers fan.  Again the debt is overdue but again it is a soft debt in that both party's are happy for payment to be deferred (probably until the Anderson's sell the club).  The fourth and final loan is the BluMarble one that becomes due on the end of August and is for £4.3 million.


So for this anti-Anderson to claim Ken hasn't paid BluMarble is somewhat premature as the payment day is still two months away yet, to claim he's taken a wage is also false, there have been been no Directors payments.  There has been a charge for work done on behalf of the club by Inner Circle (the company Ken owns) but that isn't the same as wages for Ken.

He claims Anderson has told lies about Lee working for the club - he doesn't, he's not on the wage bill and never has been.

He also talks about last years player bonuses being outstanding, again wrong, the likes of Spearing, Moxey and everybody else's haven't been paid - if not we'd have been back under embargo a long time back.

He goes on to claim all these 'facts' can be found from the clubs last accounts - they can't!  Club staff aren't listed for instance, yet they clearly show that the Directors clearly did not draw any wages!



So I guess this anti-Anderson is such because he clearly is not aware with any of the facts, nor it would appear, not too bothered to even find them out.

No fool like an old fool I guess, shame when it only takes a few minutes to look around and find out that what he takes as gospel is just a simple pile of BS.

Ignorance is bliss in his case I guess.

28 Re: Blu Marble on Fri Jul 06 2018, 22:04

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

29 Re: Blu Marble on Sat Jul 07 2018, 00:24

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

Sorry, you have an advantage over me, what consultancy fees, where?

30 Re: Blu Marble on Sat Jul 07 2018, 08:56

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Speaking to someone in the pub last night and that came up, I’ve never taken a close look at the accounts but know you have so wondering if there was any truth in it?

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

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