McGinlay, Kevin Davies and Bergsson urge Eddie Davies to act swiftly to stave off administration

Act now, before it’s too late – that was the message from three Wanderers legends last night as the club balanced precariously on the edge of administration.

John McGinlay, Kevin Davies and Gudni Bergsson have urged owner Eddie Davies to take swift action to prevent a complete financial meltdown, which would almost certainly spell relegation to League One.

Wanderers’ senior players were not paid last month and it is understood voluntary administration is now being considered as an option as a buyer for the club cannot be found.

At least four interested parties are still in discussion, each claiming they meet all the necessary criteria for ownership. Crucially, the club disagree, and with insolvency specialist Trevor Birch on board already, it is looking worryingly like the club will tip over the edge before a bid is accepted.

McGinlay, the former Scotland international who scored 87 goals in 192 appearances between 1992 and 1997, branded the current situation “scandalous” and has urged Davies to step in.

“This needs to be sorted out now before it’s too late,” he said.

“You hear conflicting stories from the club and from the people wanting to buy but surely something can be done?

“If you go into administration then it’s almost definitely relegation, and what is the club worth then?

“When we heard Eddie Davies was going to walk away with his loans it looked like we were in a pretty good situation. Now it’s anything but and he’s still the owner of the club, he’s the man making those decisions.

“Neil Lennon has had the wool pulled over his eyes. One minute he’s being told he can sign players on loan, the next he has no money at all. It’s a mess.”

Ex-England striker Kevin Davies, who represented the club for a decade between 2003 and 2013, making 407 appearances and scoring 85 goals, worries the effect of administration would see Wanderers stripped of their assets.

“People tend to look at the playing squad and the fact they haven’t paid wages – but if the worst happened then what about the academy, or the people who work in the offices and behind the scenes,” he said. “There are a lot of good people who work at the club and I would hate to see them suffer because of financial mis-management.

“The club worked hard to build all these facilities and to see them sold off piece by piece would be heartbreaking.

“If Eddie Davies has the best interest of the club at heart then he should be open and honest with people – let them know what is going on. If it’s administration, then tell us.

“If there are good offers on the table then we need to know why they are not being taken. It can’t be a case of who’s got the most money?”

Bergsson, the Icelandic defender who made 317 appearances for Wanderers between 1995 and 2003, has urged his former club to rally together in a difficult time.

“We need to regain the spirit of this club and now is the time to really pull together,” he said. “But I'm afraid this starts with the necessity to sort out the immediate finances of our club.

“We need get new investors in and there lies the most important task for Eddie Davies in his history as owner and custodian of Bolton Wanderers. How can he (and the board) do his utmost so the deal will go through in time to prevent administration, which would enable new owners to be able to get some players in January?

“At the same time we need to regroup if you like as a club from the supporters to general and coaching staff and finally the players who need to show their bottle and desire to stay in this division.

“If we manage to do this in the next few weeks and months then we can start to think more positively about the future and get back into the Premier League. We put up a good show there last time and we can certainly do it again.”

Source

Eddie has gone from hero to zero in little over a week, he still owns the club so he should stump up the funds to keep us ticking over

Norpig wrote:Eddie has gone from hero to zero in little over a week, he still owns the club so he should stump up the funds to keep us ticking over

You just want to calm down, Walter. Calm down.
Have you been?


 I must get a little hand put on this watch.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Norpig wrote:Eddie has gone from hero to zero in little over a week, he still owns the club so he should stump up the funds to keep us ticking over

You just want to calm down, Walter. Calm down.
Have you been?


 I must get a little hand put on this watch.

Why are you raking up old threads? I’m curious.

karlypants wrote:

Why are you raking up old threads? I’m curious.

Idiocy never learns and never dies, KP, it just assumes different forms.

Poor old Norpig was far from alone then and far from alone now. How much have the idiosocracy learned in the interim? In the words of the late Paul Daniels, 'Not a lot'.

P.S. It wasn't me that posted it on the 'Similar topics' list.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

karlypants wrote:

Why are you raking up old threads? I’m curious.

Idiocy never learns and never dies, KP, it just assumes different forms.

Poor old Norpig was far from alone then and far from alone now. How much have the idiosocracy learned in the interim? In the words of the late Paul Daniels, 'Not a lot'.

P.S. It wasn't me that posted it on the 'Similar topics' list.

Here's another one that popped up on the 'Similar Topics' list which I thought was very relevant to the point you are making as well!

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t12995-super-kevin-davies-v-super-john-mcginlay-as-legends-go-head-to-head-to-sign-fans-up-to-bwst

I’ve never really taken any notice of the similar topics section.

karlypants wrote:I’ve never really taken any notice of the similar topics section.

Neither had I to be honest.

It just caught my eye with Bob mentioning it.

In his post to you (not the one to Norpig, which I thought gave an unnecessarily little dig at him), Bob talks about idiocy (def - extremely stupid behaviour) and idiocracy (def - a society or group that is controlled by or consists of people of low intelligence), which I think is fair comment on the almost total lack of understanding by the vast majority of people (let alone Bolton fans) who simply have no idea of the legal ways that limited companies work, indeed why the reason limited companies even exist in the first place.

Limited companies simply means that the owners of them have 'limited' liability if the company goes bust - or in other words their personal wealth, their homes, their cars, etc, aren't seized to pay off the debts of the company that has gone bankrupt owing money to others.

They are not required to put their personal wealth at stake to prop up failing businesses simply because local football fans demand them to.

Eddie Davies, did no wrong for not putting his hand in his pocket to prop up BWFC any further than he did and neither did Ken Anderson was wrong not putting anything further into the club from his own wealth when he bought the club (with Holdworth) from Eddie.

I just thought that the headline about McGinlay and Kevin Davies going out of their way to promote the Supporters Trust was also somewhat ideocratic of them as clearly no ST has anything like the amount of money to be able to save any multi-million pound company from going out of business.

In round numbers it cost FV £30m to buy BWFC - in comparison the ST's last accounts showed they received just over £15k income and had just short of £50k in the bank - or in other words £29.9m short of what was required!!!

How the feck did people really think the ST had any chance of saving the club even if they had a decent board of directors rather than the clowns we have had on ours???

There really is a frightening lack of reality in the world at times between actual facts and what is popular belief - fake news/lies/hate/propaganda/QAnon/covid deniers, climate deniers, etc, etc, etc.

It's getting much worse too.

I really don't think this is going to end well and I can't think of how anything can stop it?

Ok I know we started talking about little old BWFC and I've ended up talking about the possible end of society as we know it but my point is that most people are easily led and quite frankly uneducated about most things and there really isn't much difference at all if you are talking about BWFC, the ST, or any other topic you'd care to choose.

The thing is that it really isn't that difficult to find out for yourself something about things rather than just believing what you read on social media like most seem to do?

We get what we deserve as the saying goes, I suppose?

You are right, Sluffy, it was a bit unfair to lampoon Norpig's lack of understanding. I don't believe that he was the worst offender by any means and just seems to have been influenced by a kind of irrational mass hysteria. Has anyone learned? Have things changed for the better? Not that I have seen tbh.

They are going worse Bob, much worse, and I suspect you know that full well.

For instance I watched a BBC documentary on Kanye West (yes not someone you would expect of me to know anything about - and you'd be right) and he's clearly absolutely bonkers.

The thing is though he's stirring up hatred against the Jews (claims the holocaust never happened, the Jews control the world, etc, etc) and as one Jewish spokeswoman pointed out in the documentary, 'in the world there are about 15 million Jews, Kanye West has a following on social media of 30 million!' who believe everything they read on there as gospel!!!

West (or as he now calls himself 'Ye') is going to run for POTUS and seems to believe he can win!

Don't laugh though, they laughed at Ronald Regan and Donald Trump standing at first too...


Fwiw I viewed the documentary out of sheer curiosity as to why the bloke seemed to be so popular and so often in the headlines?

The worlds gone bonkers and most people seemed to be easily influenced by what they choose to read on social media and implicitly believe it too (without even thinking to do even the tiniest amount of fact checking first!).

The world seems to be quickly heading towards two extremes, the first being towards the left, social justice, black lives matters, gay rights, transgenders, wokeism, cancel culture, etc, etc, or towards the right, racism, end to abolitions, anti-Jewish, neo-Nazism, fascism, misogyny, autocracy, nationalism, illegal refugees, etc, etc, etc.

Neither extreme is good, in fact they are both extremely bad.

But that's the way we seem to be heading.

God help us if we ever do.

Fwiw link to the documentary if anyone is interested -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001nc6f/the-trouble-with-kanye

Without widening it too far, Sluffy, I think that there's a commonality of misunderstanding that resulted in comments like Norpig's. 

A failure to understand the principle of limited liability is part of it but I think it also derives from something else. That sense of grievance or entitlement that it's always someone else's obligation to provide and fund whatever it is they want, whether it be the government, an employer or even a football club owner. If someone happens to have been successful in business they are fair game irrespective of how much they have already funded or how much they have left.

It seems to be most common, in my experience, in people with left-wing views. I would call it the Leftyspecs Entitlement Syndrome or LES for short.

Yes, I'm sure there is much in what you say, particularly about many feeling they have some sort of self entitlement to things, that need to be provided to them by others (the state, their employers, society in general) or that they will simply 'grab' for themselves - such as their general behaviour in public, such as ignoring the Covid rules, throwing statues into rivers, or knowingly entering the country illegally for economic reasons (and not security and safety).

There is 'wrong' on both sides through - lefty and righty specs (if you want to call them that), politicians always look after their 'own' types to stay in power and our governments has become more extreme in their behaviour during Johnson and Truss.  Employers have had years of relative cheap labour costs with hundred of thousands Poles and other eastern Europeans flooding into the country to work - and thus impacting on there being a greater supply of low cost non skilled workers than the demand is for them - thus little if any year on year wage rises for them.

What I believe happens is a 'push back' eventually happens from both sides and this has been more noticeable since Brexit occurred.

I'm not blaming Brexit per se but from then on we started to see food cost rises due to import issues caused by Brexit's new rules,  issues with exports because of the same, foreign labour returning home and UK labour staying on their benefits rather than to fill the now empty job roles.  We had the most extreme political power in control than we've ever had in terms of their honesty and self serving behaviour (lobbying scandals, bullying, lying in Parliament, etc, etc, etc).

We then had Covid that was handled badly by both sides - the government made some massive mistakes (the peer who led the government accounting for finance quit because he knew the systems that had been set up had been pillaged for millions with little to no chance of ever recovering the money) - and on the other side we had millions of people who couldn't be arsed to wash their hands, wear a mask and keep a meter or more apart from one another - and Covid spread like wildfire and thus we had to have continual lockdowns.

We also had the rise of Black Lives Matter and more wide spread public protesting, which still lives on with the Just Stop Oil campaigners.

The push back I talk about is that each side (lefty or righty) takes a stance and one side becomes more extreme to make their point, causing the other to act more extremely the other way to counter it.  Think of how wide the gap is now in American politics between the Republicans and the Democrats and how extreme they are becoming in their politics and behaviour since Trump became POTUS.

The righty's are heading towards autocratic and imperialist rule (think 'make America great again') in the same direction as Putin and Xi have in Russia and China respectively.  Erdogan in Turkey is more or less there as well.

We, our country and our people, are simply 'copiers' of what others do and it is clear our politicians under Johnson and Truss have followed a Trump/Republican path towards some sort of autocratic path of continual power.

At the same time our general 'society' has in terms of 'self-entitlement' has grown massively and that's presumably why we get gay and transgender rights, BLM, and just stop oil protests thrust in our faces so often, whether we support what they are doing or not.  (We used to have protests about better pay and conditions but now it is about 'human rights' to become transsexual, or that we should 'cancel' people or business for a 'joke' they didn't like or because they got rich in the slave trade 300 years ago - and they want reparation for it!).

It's all a mess to my way of thinking - both sides are not representing what most of the rest of us want - but the more extreme the lefty's get, the more extreme righty legislation will be enacted and that will limited the powers of all of us - and eventually we will ultimately move to how Russia and China control their populations if we don't turn things around.

Better if we end that now before it goes too far, if we somehow can?

Aside from any wider issues, Sluffy, it seems to me that there is scarcely anywhere, other than Nuts, that anyone has been able to find any rational exploration or explanation of Bolton Wanderers finances. It is also the case that FV's finances today derive, to a large extent, from the decisions that were taken by the late Eddie Davies and the Trustees of the Eddie Davies Trust which wrote off massive sums of money both before and subsequent to Eddie's untimely death.

Former players sadly have proved to be misguided whilst the Bolton News has been a consistently uninformed and, dare I say, unreliable witness. Some may have forgotten (or prefer to forget) that it was Kevin Davies that took it upon himself (as reported in the BN in early 2016) to wrongfully impugn Michael James when he persuaded Tom Morris to make PBP funds available to help BWFC through its crisis.
 
KD's allegations appear to have had no justification whatsoever but there has not, to the best of my knowledge, been any subsequent correction or apology. It has, though, continued to be the case that BWFC has relied substantially on and profited from the generosity of PBP and its owners.

Michael James is the only Bolton Wanderers supporter on the Board of FV.

That's because there's scarcely a football fan who actually understands that a football club is a business that has to trade to be financially viable (or beholding to the personal financial benevolence of the owner) - all the masses are concerned about is what is out there on the pitch and why 'the board' doesn't buy better players for them at every transfer window.

You'd think our fans would be more aware of this after what we've been through recently, but no, they seem to have the financial attention of a goldfish when it comes to football - yet every season we see clubs spectacularly fail time and time again due to poor financial running at the club impacting on what players they can put out on the pitch.

For instance Leicester crashed out of the Premier League last season simply because the club owners could not fund them anymore because their core business (Malaysian airport sales) had crashed during Covid times, or that Wigan very nearly went out of existence when their wealthy Bahraini owner decided that he'd reached his limit on spending his personal wealth on the club (£20m) and wasn't putting in any more, or Everton where the mega rich Russian oligarch behind the club Alisher Usmanov was prevented from financing them further due to him being sanctioned over to the war in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisher_Usmanov

Blackburn seems to be the latest club in financial trouble -

Cash-strapped Championship club ask players to book their OWN flights home from pre-season tour
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/23150934/blackburn-players-book-flights-pre-season-tour/

It is what it is though Bob, Karl Marx once explained that 'religion was the opium of the masses' or in other words let people concern themselves over something ethereal (and ultimately meaningless) rather than concentrate on what is actually happening in the real world around them - these days you can simply replace 'religion' for 'football' - as the same scenario still applies.

People still can't get it into their heads football is only a GAME when all said and done and provided for their entertainment by the BUSINESS that provides the club to play the game for them to watch.

As for Iles, Kevin Davies, and plenty of others, the less said about their comprehension of footballing financial matters, the better.

I'm not sure that footie fans are only 'concerned about is what is out there on the pitch', Sluffy.

Media reports on football money issues are avidly followed and commented upon whilst FV has just raised £4.5m from supporters who want to help financially. Personally I thought that the financial information on which they made their decisions to 'invest' was as limp as last week's lettuce.

You are right that football is like an alternative religion and it seems to me that there's a 'good news' evangelical type thing going on at BWFC at the moment. I do hope that IE's new squad will be able to live up to what's expected of them this coming season.

I do believe most are only concerned about what's on the pitch, you only have to look at forums like ww, social media such as Twitter, and telephone 'phone ins' to radio shows, which indicate the vast number of fans simply aren't bothered about how the 'money' works behind the scenes and all they are bothered about is what is on the pitch and why there isn't better out there.

Football IS a religion to many - that is abundantly clear to me.

I simply can't believe how many live their lives around a football club.

Sure football is an entertainment, interest, pleasure to many including me at times - but no more than that, unfortunately for some/many it goes a long way beyond that for them.

Yes many people do avidly follow media issues of struggling football clubs but in respect of their own clubs money woes, they clearly can't understand them (look at the mammoth threads on here and ww where all sorts on utter bollocks were spouted by the insanely dense or the few who thought they were clever but simply showed their actual total ignorance of finance and accounts (such as Wanderlust being £168m out because he doesn't know how to read a simple balance sheet).  And in respect of other clubs, they follow them avidly simply because they desperately want them to go bust - see the 100 plus page thread on ww in respect of Wigan for instance!

People might have an interest but they clearly don't understand what they are talking about and 'attack' the few of us who actually do simply because what we say doesn't fit in with what they want to hear!

Christ the abuse I got on here (and ww) for pointing out that Anderson was not a crook, was not raping and pillaging the club (Wanderlust again!), and actually deserved some credit for keeping the business just about solvent when running solely on financial 'fumes' until he found a 'proper' buyer, was insane - and totally unwarranted.

And what's more I was subsequently proved to be absolutely correct in what I had said because I had known what I was talking about.

It's sadly just par for the course these days.

People are easily manipulated and follow like sheep anyone who tells them what they want to hear.

As for the bond scheme, that simply played on people's club loyalty.

It had a feel of 'grifting' about it to me.

Hopefully I'm wrong about that and everyone will get settled in full on the due date.

Unfortunately I can't see where the money is going to come from to do that though whilst the business is still trading at a loss, and with a current long overdue debts of £5.5m to PBP already long outstanding - and whilst that debt is at least 'secured' (meaning that they WILL eventually get it back), the bond money isn't!

We live in hope though...

Sluffy wrote:I do believe most are only concerned about what's on the pitch, you only have to look at forums like ww, social media such as Twitter, and telephone 'phone ins' to radio shows, which indicate the vast number of fans simply aren't bothered about how the 'money' works behind the scenes and all they are bothered about is what is on the pitch and why there isn't better out there.

Football IS a religion to many - that is abundantly clear to me.

I simply can't believe how many live their lives around a football club.

Sure football is an entertainment, interest, pleasure to many including me at times - but no more than that, unfortunately for some/many it goes a long way beyond that for them.

Yes many people do avidly follow media issues of struggling football clubs but in respect of their own clubs money woes, they clearly can't understand them (look at the mammoth threads on here and ww where all sorts on utter bollocks were spouted by the insanely dense or the few who thought they were clever but simply showed their actual total ignorance of finance and accounts (such as Wanderlust being £168m out because he doesn't know how to read a simple balance sheet).  And in respect of other clubs they follow avidly simply because they desperately want them to go bust - see the 100 plus page thread on ww in respect of Wigan for instance!

People might have an interest but they clearly don't understand what they are talking about and 'attack' the few of us who actually do simply because what we say doesn't fit in with what they want to hear!

Christ the abuse I got on here (and ww) for pointing out that Anderson was not a crook, was not raping and pillaging the club (Wanderlust again!), and actually deserved some credit for keeping the business just about solvent when running solely on financial 'fumes' until he found a 'proper' buyer, was insane - and totally unwarranted.

And what's more I was subsequently proved to be absolutely correct in what I had said because I had known what I was talking about.

It's sadly just par for the course these days.

People are easily manipulated and follow like sheep anyone who tells them what they want to hear.

As for the bond scheme, that simply played on people's club loyalty.

It had a feel of 'grifting' about it to me.

Hopefully I'm wrong about that and everyone will get settled in full on the due date.

Unfortunately I can't see where the money is going to come from to do that though whilst the business is still trading at a loss, and with a current long overdue debts of £5.5m to PBP already long outstanding - and whilst that debt is at least 'secured' (meaning that they WILL eventually get it back), the bond money isn't!

We live in hope though...

Secured means you have a better chance of getting your money back, Sluffy. It doesn't mean you will.

The Eddie Davies Trust debts were 'secured' but in the end it had to settle for £3m out of nearly £200m 'secured'.

The PBP debt may be secured but they have already written off six years interest and could end up writing off more before they are finished. The bond money? Totally unsecured.

The Beeno is still the main source of info for a lot of fans and Iles continues to pump out his 'previous regimes' bile at every opportunity. FV disciples comprise the majority of commenters on the BN site but there are a few skeptics. They arouse the ire and abuse of the disciples though one at least seems to have noticed that Nuts is the only place you can get a more informed or balanced view.

I'm not anti-FV but I am anti-halftruths.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Secured means you have a better chance of getting your money back, Sluffy. It doesn't mean you will.

The Eddie Davies Trust debts were 'secured' but in the end it had to settle for £3m out of nearly £200m 'secured'.

The PBP debt may be secured but they have already written off six years interest and could end up writing off more before they are finished. The bond money? Totally unsecured.

The Beeno is still the main source of info for a lot of fans and Iles continues to pump out his 'previous regimes' bile at every opportunity. FV disciples comprise the majority of commenters on the BN site but there are a few skeptics. They arouse the ire and abuse of the disciples though one at least seems to have noticed that Nuts is the only place you can get a more informed or balanced view.

I'm not anti-FV but I am anti-halftruths.

Thanks Bob, I did know what secured really meant and was just trying to simplify for others to better understand between how one debt WILL almost certainly get something back (eventually) whilst the bond debt possibly may not - caveat emptor type of thing!

Fwiw the PBP is secured against the hotel and in theory PBP could simply take ownership of the hotel in lieu of its unpaid loan although it does seem PBP has some sort of agreement with FV over continuing and extending the term of the debt.

I'm beginning to think that although James is the minority owner of PBP that the loaned money of £5.5m may actually be mostly his.  It would explain to me why there has seemed to be no significant pressure from PBP for the money back (despite being several years over due) and the waiving of the accumulated interest it had accrued at the point of the recent extending the loan.

I don't read the BN these days (apart from what Karly kindly posts up for us) as I refuse to pay to read basically for Iles articles.

I do have an inkling though as to who one or more of those from the comments section are and who may have made reference to Nuts.

I like you am not anti-FV, I simply am trying to understand why they are here (they don't seem to have any personal connections to Bolton) and why they chose us rather than many other clubs on the market, far more convenient to them in terms of price and location?

I don't see FV as necessarily duplicitous or shady owners, yet at the same time I simply can't understand what there business plan is or how they are seeming to fund it.

It's more of a mental conundrum that intrigues me rather than an emotional one.

Its clear, Sluffy, from the audited accounts of both companies concerned, that the £5.5m loan is from PBP funds not Michael James'. MJ has only a 20% interest in PBP, Tom Morris 80%.

Why would Tom agree to any of it, is a reasonable question, but there can be no doubting the fact that PBP's generous support has been crucial in helping BWFC through the last seven years.

Why did FV get involved? Who knows but you have to believe that those who did put up money were putting their trust in Sharon whilst having a bit of a punt with money they could afford to lose.

I expect that the reasoning might have been that they could sell their shares for more than they paid for them at some later date.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't but FV are selling new shares at a considerable premium and, as has been noted previously, some of them to the UK taxpayer.

I don't think you got my drift Bob.  Yes what you say is true about PBP but James and Morris have other connections between themselves, no doubt personal as well as business.

I'm speculating a 'what if' in respect that £5.5m loan

I assume the loan was made initially in the way that it is shown.

On maturity (and thereafter) Davies/Anderson/FV (whichever was the owner of the club at the times) clearly were not in a positions to pay it off, so why didn't PBP 'enforce' payment by court action (BluMarble did in similar circumstances, for instance)?

I doubt Morris would willingly want 80% of what he owned on a £5.5m loan just to 'sit there' for years to come AND basically attract NO interest (as it seems to keep getting waived).

Doesn't make any good financial sense for Morris does it?

If the loan was 'forced' to be repaid by means of a 'winding up' action in court, then that would be detrimental to FV and it's owners, one of which of course is James.

So how do the partners (and no doubt friends) resolve the matter?

Well one way is for Morris to take the 'hit' and live with it and that is what we are assuming has/is happening.

But is there another way perhaps?

What if the pair came to some sort of informal agreement between the two of them where where James gave/signed over/promised or whatever, a sum equivalent to the 80% owed to Morris?

Think of it like Eddie gave Anderson the money to pay off BluMarble by taking security on Anderson's company that held the shares in BWFC.

Obviously we know that but if we didn't all we would have seen was Anderson settling the BluMarble loan by putting his(?) money into the club to do so.

I'm musing (that's all it is, I clearly have no proof) that James and Morris might have made some informal deal between them whereby everything stays the same on the 'surface' (no changes of share ownership at PBP, no winding up petition, etc) but behind the scenes James has ceded a similar amount of money to Morris in someway or other and thus has in effect taken on the whole of the PBP debt himself?

That would explain why there seems no rush from ANY side to settle the PBP debt - neither Morris, James, PBP or FV are looking for settlement AND the accruing interest is not seen an issue and may well be continually written off like Eddie did with his loans.

Ok, just sheer abstract thinking on my part - but it would explain what is happening other than Morris being happy and willing not wanting his money back for years to come AND writing off all the interest accrued to date.

You may be right about FV and the shareholders in it but I still can't get my head around 'why us, why BWFC?' in that there have been multiple better deals to be had at other clubs, many of which having far more potential than we will ever have short of having some sort of billionaire patron.