Blu Marble

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y 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.

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.

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

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

T.R.O.Y 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.

Kane57 wrote:Honestly Sluffy your replies are borderline unbearable. They're just so unnecessarily long

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

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.

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

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

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

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?

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

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

Seem to remember seeing something about Anderson slipping his son half a million or so, but perhaps I'm mistaken....?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

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

Seem to remember seeing something about Anderson slipping his son half a million or so, but perhaps I'm mistaken....?

There was half a million taken out by Ken for his own wages, don't know how much Lee is taking out of the club or if that half million covers both of them

Growler wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

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

Seem to remember seeing something about Anderson slipping his son half a million or so, but perhaps I'm mistaken....?

There was half a million taken out by Ken for his own wages, don't know how much Lee is taking out of the club or if that half million covers both of them

No there wasn't - don't let the facts get in the way of your tale.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

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

Seem to remember seeing something about Anderson slipping his son half a million or so, but perhaps I'm mistaken....?

You're mistaken.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

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

Seem to remember seeing something about Anderson slipping his son half a million or so, but perhaps I'm mistaken....?

You're mistaken.

Thanks Ken.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you make of Lee Andersons’ consultancy fees Sluffy?

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

Seem to remember seeing something about Anderson slipping his son half a million or so, but perhaps I'm mistaken....?

You're mistaken.

Thanks Ken.

Facts are facts - the rest of us don't live in a made up world like you seem to want to inhabit.

Sluffy, just give it a fucking rest.

Ken received £525,000 consultancy fees (paid via Inner Circle). A consultancy fee of £125,000 was also paid to Athos Group which is "owned by a family member of K Anderson."

How much was gartside on.   Man deserves paying. The players have all been paid. Its just bonuses

One of the companies i used to work for was ALWAYS late or forgot to pay bonuses. No one took strike action. Why? Because a bonus is exactly that.  You dont rely on it to live.  It got sorted like it always does.  Shame all the people using their pensions etc are missing out on a game of football due to tge selfish act of multi millionaire babies

Chronology...
Amos signed to huge contract...
Amos has blinders...
Team is relegated to League One after ED pulls his money out of the club...
Team almost goes into court to prevent liquidation...
KA buys team with Dean in the last hour to prevent liquidation...
KA buys out Dean and becomes sole owner...
Team rises from League One in the first year after relegation to rejoin Championship...
Team payroll is 6.8 million pounds
Large salaries are shed one by one...  Spearing does not agree to terms and leaves... Wheater on the other hand, foregoes a bonus and signs up for reduced wages... Mark Davies is owed big money on his last year... Pratley becoming one of the last remaining high priced players on the squad.
Team rejoins Championship... and goes two years without spending money on transfer fees... 
Amos is loaned out for two years... with only a partial salary being paid by the loaned club...
Team stays up on the last day... Amos continues to make his £16,000/week... or £2.5 million over the last 3 years...
Parkinson invites Amos back to the squad last month after Howard is released...
Amos is the cause of a mutiny which cancels the first preseason game and could eventually divide the team for the upcoming season.

Something precipitated this dispute... or Amos is perhaps the biggest pig in football.  Perhaps Ken and Amos's agent had a pissing contest and Ken stood his ground?  Perhaps Amos threw a fit on the pitch?  Perhaps Ken overreacted to paying money out of his pocket?  

Things that are clear... Ken is not getting rich from the club presently.  Amos, who is lucky to have signed a four-year deal should be kissing the pitch every day.  There are two sides to every story, and in this case there may be even more... such as the bonuses not paid.

Ken made it clear he would have problems financially in the short term.  Contractually he is obligated to pay every player on time.  The sad fact is this should have never gotten this far.  Who, in their right mind, would want to join a club who may or may not pay?  Is the team willing to play or to help the owner get over the hump until revenues come in?  Is KA asking too much and giving too little to get investment help?  The fact remains that Ben Amos should be thankful 2.5 million times over for the team's existence.  There is give and take in every business, and often there are cash flow problems.  This should have been sorted between the parties quietly and behind the scenes.  Now, who knows where this will lead?  It's ugly and no one will win from this dispute.