Bolton players and coaching staff told wages will be late

Growler wrote:The Ken Loyalists, and there are a few of them out there, reckon Ken is entitled to take as much money as he wants out of the club because without him the club would have folded when Eddie Davies was in charge.

Forget thinking of people being a Ken loyalist or not for the moment if you will and think more that Burnden Leisure is a privately owned business.

As long as the owner doesn't break any laws then he's free to run it how he wants - even into the ground or close it down completely if he is that way inclined (that's why they have voluntary liquidation as a means of company closures).

That's just a fact of life.

Nothing to do if you are in the pro or anti Anderson camp.

As long as he doesn't break any company law then he's entitled to enrich himself as much as he wants - whether people like the fact or not.

It goes on everywhere - look at Philip Green for instance and Dominic Chappell who bought BHS from him for £1 and took out £17 million in just over a year.

Most people (yourself included I suggest) simply can't separate their emotional attachment to the club with the harsh reality of real life business practice.

Those few that can are seen by those who can't as Ken 'loyalist's' - we are nothing of the sort - we are just trying to explain things how they are and not how you want them to be.

It is arguable whether or not Company Law was breached. Running a company with a single man Board is accepted bad corporate governance. It also breaches the Articles of Association of Burnden Leisure. The Articles themselves say that no other business can be carried out until the minimum number of directors (i.e. 2) has been appointed.

maconman wrote:It is arguable whether or not Company Law was breached. Running a company with a single man Board is accepted bad corporate governance. It also breaches the Articles of Association of Burnden Leisure. The Articles themselves say that no other business can be carried out until the minimum number of directors (i.e. 2) has been appointed.

I very much doubt that the powers that be would be too concerned about the technicality considering the major shareholder owns something like 95% shares and is the person who would hire (and fire!) the Directors to see that the business is running as the majority of the shareholding would wish.

Don't forget he can (and has) the power to make his own wife a Director if he really wanted to comply with the technicality - do you think she would ever had voted against him?

I think you need to move on mate as I think there is only you (and possibly the other minority shareholders - which let's face it amount to less than 5% of the voting power in the club) that seems to have any sort of an issue with it.

Sluffy wrote:

Growler wrote:The Ken Loyalists, and there are a few of them out there, reckon Ken is entitled to take as much money as he wants out of the club because without him the club would have folded when Eddie Davies was in charge.

Forget thinking of people being a Ken loyalist or not for the moment if you will and think more that Burnden Leisure is a privately owned business.

As long as the owner doesn't break any laws then he's free to run it how he wants - even into the ground or close it down completely if he is that way inclined (that's why they have voluntary liquidation as a means of company closures).

That's just a fact of life.

Nothing to do if you are in the pro or anti Anderson camp.

As long as he doesn't break any company law then he's entitled to enrich himself as much as he wants - whether people like the fact or not.

It goes on everywhere - look at Philip Green for instance and Dominic Chappell who bought BHS from him for £1 and took out £17 million in just over a year.

Most people (yourself included I suggest) simply can't separate their emotional attachment to the club with the harsh reality of real life business practice.

Those few that can are seen by those who can't as Ken 'loyalist's' - we are nothing of the sort - we are just trying to explain things how they are and not how you want them to be.

Nobody’s arguing whether Ken can do it, clearly he can and legally.

The issue is from a moral standpoint, football is an emotional game and a club is not just a business. Fans are entitled to feel pissed off to be treated in this way, you’re only busy defending him because you’ve spent the last 2 years slagging anyone off who even hinted this would end up being the case. Your personal pride clouds your judgement.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Growler wrote:The Ken Loyalists, and there are a few of them out there, reckon Ken is entitled to take as much money as he wants out of the club because without him the club would have folded when Eddie Davies was in charge.

Forget thinking of people being a Ken loyalist or not for the moment if you will and think more that Burnden Leisure is a privately owned business.

As long as the owner doesn't break any laws then he's free to run it how he wants - even into the ground or close it down completely if he is that way inclined (that's why they have voluntary liquidation as a means of company closures).

That's just a fact of life.

Nothing to do if you are in the pro or anti Anderson camp.

As long as he doesn't break any company law then he's entitled to enrich himself as much as he wants - whether people like the fact or not.

It goes on everywhere - look at Philip Green for instance and Dominic Chappell who bought BHS from him for £1 and took out £17 million in just over a year.

Most people (yourself included I suggest) simply can't separate their emotional attachment to the club with the harsh reality of real life business practice.

Those few that can are seen by those who can't as Ken 'loyalist's' - we are nothing of the sort - we are just trying to explain things how they are and not how you want them to be.

Nobody’s arguing whether Ken can do it, clearly he can and legally.

The issue is from a moral standpoint, football is an emotional game and a club is not just a business. Fans are entitled to feel pissed off to be treated in this way, you’re only busy defending him because you’ve spent the last 2 years slagging anyone off who even hinted this would end up being the case. Your personal pride clouds your judgement.

Total bollocks.

I've spent the last three years (let alone two) trying my best to explain to people that the club is a business and that Anderson was here to run it as such which meant making money out of owning it.

Time and time again people have judge his actions through their emotions and love of the club - they are still doing it now - but that is simply not the reality of what needed to happen to achieve that - which as been acting ruthlessly to reduce expenditure, and maximise income.  Of course he's pissed off loads of people doing so and yes he's not acted as morally or as ethically as many people want but as they say 'it's nothing personal, just business'.

People can't seem to get their heads around that he's not been here to put his personal wealth into the club but rather the other way around, to make the club more efficient in order to make money from it.

I don't know how much truth there is/was in Iles and Nixon's story about the 'consortium' proposed take over but if what they implied was true then Anderson has turned the club around from being something nobody wanted to buy for £1 other than Holdsworth (with himself only joining at the last minute) to something someone was seemingly willing to pay him 2 or 3 million for after the creditors have been paid off.

Nobody can do that by being Mr Nice to everyone.

Business simply doesn't work like that - hence the saying 'nice guys come last'.

The simple truth is that he's moved the business on from Davies time with all those stupid wages and long  term contracts that Gartside signed off, kept the club going for a further three years on smoke and mirrors (certainly without any outside investment to help him) to a point that those contracts are all gone and someone seems to want to buy the club off him.

That's all it was about for him - and that's what I've been constantly trying to explain to people.

It's never been about asset stripping (there were no assets to strip) nor deliberately bankrupting the club (how can he sell it for the 2 or 3 million he nearly did, if he had done that then?) and it was this utter nonsense (and constant vitriol and abuse) that I've attempted to counter from our resident know all and Anderson hater.

It wasn't rocket science but people somehow still can't seem to get it into their heads that unless you are a fan of the club like Eddie that is what business owners do, they run the company to make money out of it and not to simply please the fans (nor if it came to the crunch - even their own employees at times!).

No you’ve consistently gone further than that in attacking any poster, journalist or official who has in any way criticised Anderson. Your theories as to his intentions and actions at the club are no more or less valid than any one else’s, I’ve told you that a few times now and it continues to escape you.

Nobody is suggesting he’s broken any laws, but plenty are annoyed at how immorally he’s behaved in respect to the club - and have every right to be. The club is an extension of the community, it is not just a normal business. Fans feel an association with the club on and off the pitch.

T.R.O.Y wrote:No you’ve consistently gone further than that  in attacking any poster, journalist or official who has in any way criticised Anderson. Your theories as to his intentions and actions at the club are no more or less valid than any one else’s, I’ve told you that a few times now and it continues to escape you.

Nobody is suggesting he’s broken any laws, plenty are annoying at how immorally he’s behaved in respect to the club though - and have every right to be. The club is an extension of the community, it is not just a normal business. Fans feel an association with the club on and off the pitch.

That is the problem though - it is an emotional perception made by many but it doesn't make it real - it's not.

The club (or to be more precise Burnden Leisure) is a multi-million pound business in the entertainments industry.

Just because people 'shop' there/ have an association with, doesn't give them any more say than when they shop with their local pub, bank, restaurant, favourite high street store, etc, etc.

Why do you think pressure groups of people coming together to keep their local pub, or nearest bank branch, that nice little bistro that was always quiet, the national high street chain that's just closed the towns shop, etc, are often ineffectual - such as the proliferation of Supporters Trusts are?

The Dons of Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes, there's a very real chance that Coventry will not be playing their home games in Coventry next season - not because the fans wanted the club to move, or play in another town - but because the owners did!

It was their businesses and they took those decisions despite what those people with emotional attachments had to them.

If people want to run the club ethically, and for the benefits of those who feel they have an association with it both on and off the pitch, then go and buy yourself one and run it as you believe you should.  I think ideology and good intentions will change soon enough when reality hits - just the same as reality hit those who thought Anderson was here to piss his personal wealth away on the club just like Eddie had.

Anderson was here to make himself money - that's not a crime.

No matter how many people dislike him and what he's done whilst he's been here, there is no evidence that he's broken any law (that even includes being late with the wages).

If people can't seem to understand that or want to accept it, then that's their problem because pissing people off isn't a crime yet.

As for Iles, I look forward to his book he is no doubt writing about all the shenanigans both Holdsworth and the ST had gotten up to since Davies sold the club because he hasn't written one negative word about either of them during all that time - so he must have been keeping those stories back for his best seller.

Can't believe I need to say this for a third time: Nobody is suggesting it is a crime.

People are annoyed because he has (seemingly) taken money out for himself while messing around ordinary members of staff and impacting our on pitch chances with shenanigans off the field.

It's really not that complicated, people are perfectly entitled to be irritated by this. Accept that.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Can't believe I need to say this for a third time: Nobody is suggesting it is a crime.

People are annoyed because he has taken money out for himself while messing around ordinary members of staff while also impacting our on pitch chances with shenanigans off the field.

It's really not that complicated, people are perfectly entitled to be irritated by this. Accept that.

Then accept the fact that he has every right to take money out for himself whilst messing around ordinary members of staff whilst impacting also impacting our pitch chances with shenanigans off the field.

It is HIS company to run it how he pleases and NOT to please anyone else - even his own staff or customers (provided he does this within the law of course).

You are absolutely right to say it is not that complicated.

People can be as irritated as they like but he's not actually done anything wrong or illegal by pissing them, or the whole world, off. 

Those being annoyed, angry or pissed with him doesn't mean they are in the right - they might be morally but that's a different story - because morally doesn't keep the wolf from the door or make him richer - and many people - including you it seems - can't seem to accept that fact.

Yes I can’t accept the fact I’ve just had to repeat to you three times. I thought recent events following 3 years of blind adulation of KA might teach you humility. Clearly not.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Yes I can’t accept the fact I’ve just had to repeat to you three times. I thought recent events following 3 years of blind adulation of KA might teach you humility. Clearly not.

Blind adulation!!!

I've constantly given a narrative based on rationale rather than emotions, on facts rather than supposition, with an open mind rather than prejudice based on historical misdemeanours.

People are so mindset on being anti-Anderson that anyone not sharing the same negativity towards him are seen to be cheerleading for him or something akin to that!

I have always been neutral towards him - neither praising or condemning him - I have however challenged the most extreme and ridiculous views and abuse of him - mainly from one particular poster - and even at this late stage with Anderson's tenure with us (I assume the end is close for him now) that he's never been found guilty of anything, by anyone, either legally or professionally - after three years of being here!

What happened to the bit about being innocent before being proved guilty and all that?

I would have thought you more than anybody on here, who does seem to possess a high social conscience imo, would have been able to appreciate that rather than come to a total misjudgement on my narrative like all the other anti-Anderson's seem to have done.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Yes I can’t accept the fact I’ve just had to repeat to you three times. I thought recent events following 3 years of blind adulation of KA might teach you humility. Clearly not.

Blind adulation!!!

I've constantly given a narrative based on rationale rather than emotions, on facts rather than supposition, with an open mind rather than prejudice based on historical misdemeanours.

People are so mindset on being anti-Anderson that anyone not sharing the same negativity towards him are seen to be cheerleading for him or something akin to that!

I have always been neutral towards him - neither praising or condemning him - I have however challenged the most extreme and ridiculous views and abuse of him - mainly from one particular poster - and even at this late stage with Anderson's tenure with us (I assume the end is close for him now) that he's never been found guilty of anything, by anyone, either legally or professionally - after three years of being here!

What happened to the bit about being innocent before being proved guilty and all that?

I would have thought you more than anybody on here, who does seem to possess a high social conscience imo, would have been able to appreciate that rather than come to a total misjudgement on my narrative like all the other anti-Anderson's seem to have done.

If the "one particular poster" you are referring to is me, I'd suggest you take a leaf out of your own book as I have always expressed my views as "concerns" and "suspicions" which is what they are and will remain so until the facts of the matter come out, if they ever do.

I have no problem with you expressing your point of view, even though I find it to be largely bullshit substantially embellished with paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant analogies and morality lectures usually reserved for the highly insecure (in my opinion) and as things seem to be working out in pretty much exactly the way I predicted they would I suspect my concerns and suspicions may be right but for now they remain exactly that - concerns and suspicions - which by nature are often "extreme and ridiculous" if you haven't the capacity to conceive of them in the first place. If anything, events over the last year have made those ridiculous ideas I vaunted more plausible - you certainly haven't had any evidence to prove they're not true so let's just wait and see shall we?

At least we've come a long way from the "King Ken is our saviour" tripe that started this whole thing off.


PS: In post 25 you say it was never about asset stripping as there were "no assets to strip". 
You say you only deal in facts, so here's a fact: As of the 30th of June 2016 Burnden Leisure had Fixed Assets of £40,956,000 and Current Assets of £8,015,000. 

A year later (June 2017) Fixed Assets were down to £37,197,000 and Current Assets down to £5,948,000.

Net Liabilities were UP by a £million in the year. 

It will be interesting to see what assets they have now.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Yes I can’t accept the fact I’ve just had to repeat to you three times. I thought recent events following 3 years of blind adulation of KA might teach you humility. Clearly not.

Blind adulation!!!

I've constantly given a narrative based on rationale rather than emotions, on facts rather than supposition, with an open mind rather than prejudice based on historical misdemeanours.

People are so mindset on being anti-Anderson that anyone not sharing the same negativity towards him are seen to be cheerleading for him or something akin to that!

I have always been neutral towards him - neither praising or condemning him - I have however challenged the most extreme and ridiculous views and abuse of him - mainly from one particular poster - and even at this late stage with Anderson's tenure with us (I assume the end is close for him now) that he's never been found guilty of anything, by anyone, either legally or professionally - after three years of being here!

What happened to the bit about being innocent before being proved guilty and all that?

I would have thought you more than anybody on here, who does seem to possess a high social conscience imo, would have been able to appreciate that rather than come to a total misjudgement on my narrative like all the other anti-Anderson's seem to have done.

If the "one particular poster" you are referring to is me, I'd suggest you take a leaf out of your own book as I have always expressed my views as "concerns" and "suspicions" which is what they are and will remain so until the facts of the matter come out, if they ever do.

I have no problem with you expressing your point of view, even though I find it to be largely bullshit substantially embellished with paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant analogies and morality lectures usually reserved for the highly insecure (in my opinion) and as things seem to be working out in pretty much exactly the way I predicted they would I suspect my concerns and suspicions may be right but for now they remain exactly that - concerns and suspicions - which by nature are often "extreme and ridiculous" if you haven't the capacity to conceive of them in the first place. If anything, events over the last year have made those ridiculous ideas I vaunted more plausible - you certainly haven't had any evidence to prove they're not true so let's just wait and see shall we?

At least we've come a long way from the "King Ken is our saviour" tripe that started this whole thing off.


PS: In post 25 you say it was never about asset stripping as there were "no assets to strip". 
You say you only deal in facts, so here's a fact: As of the 30th of June 2016 Burnden Leisure had Fixed Assets of £40,956,000 and Current Assets of £8,015,000. 

A year later (June 2017) Fixed Assets were down to £37,197,000 and Current Assets down to £5,948,000.

Net Liabilities were UP by a £million in the year. 

It will be interesting to see what assets they have now.

Hahaha - you do make me laugh.

You have always expressed your views as 'concerns' and 'suspicions' - sure you have!  Read back through your countless posts about Anderson, you've TOLD us how he was doing this, that and the other, pawning all the assets (the sale of assets you mention above for the sale of the car parks by Davies, which Anderson had no money to redeem when payment became due and subsequently the write down - I've told you all this before but you never listen), deliberately bankrupting the club, never going to pay for a player, never going to let anyone see the books, never going to sell the club, Ron Billionaire was going to buy us, Ron Billionaire could not afford Andersons price (I really laughed at that one!), Ron Billionaire was going to buy us from Administration, Ron Billionaire wouldn't buy us from Administration because some Del Trotter type is going to bung Anderson a envelope stuffed with money to sell to him instead, and on and on and on and on...

You could not even refer to Anderson by name - such was your hatred of him you had to use the term toadface/fuckface!

It's only recently that you've been more cautious with what you've said about him.

It wasn't even me that used the King Ken tag (I think it was either Johnny or Leeds Trotter who came up with the saying and logo), I don't recall ever using it myself.  It was only said in funny anyway.

I'm not sure how you can even claim to say things are working out as you predicted - as you more or less claimed everything - in fact the only thing you never mentioned was the requirement to take the lien off the shares - which happens to be the one single thing that HAD to be done, or lose the club to Moonshift.

I'll pass on you yet again being personal and distasteful by inferring I have some form of mental illness - it clearly shows what type of a person you really are.