Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers News » McGinlay, Kevin Davies and Bergsson urge Eddie Davies to act swiftly to stave off administration

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

+3
Ten Bobsworth
Norpig
karlypants
7 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 7]

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sorry Sluffy but you still  haven't quite grasped it. The administrators put Ken Anderson at risk of losing a small fortune but he didn't actually lose anything. It may have been that he was smarter than them. I think he probably was.

The big losers were the beneficiaries of the Eddie Davies Trust. I expect the beneficiaries would have included Eddie's family; his wife Sue, his two children and his grandchildren although there may also have been some charities.

Eddie's money was made in the Isle of Man but I don't think many IOM charities benefited much from his fortune. It mostly went on the overpaid footballers and football managers of Bolton Wanderers.

 I wouldn't include John McGinlay or Gudni Bergsson in the 'overpaid' list but SKD did make a fortune out of the club whilst Eddie owned it but he, like many others, didn't seem to appreciate it very much.
 
P.S. You could Bazuka that verruca if its really playing up.

P.P.S.
One £7.5million 🎵
There's only one £7.5million🎵
One £7.5million 🎵
There's only one £7.5million 🎵

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

To be honest Bob, I'm passed caring now.

I played the game for fun, to stretch my old grey cells and also partly to amuse you as a kind of thank you for all your past help.

The Administrator did what he did, so to did KA and EDT, whoever may have won or lost, they have all ruled a line under it (around four years ago now!) moved on and put it well behind them.

As far as I'm concerned it is all history now which doesn't effect the present ownership or finances (ok, well if we hadn't have gone bust and fell into Administration we would be on a different path that we are on now but we are were we are and we just have to go from there).

I've never really cared who put what into the club or who took what out, I'm not really concerned if the Administrator played by the book or went rogue, it doesn't bother me if Eddie isn't seen as a hero, or if Anderson is the Devil himself or just a very shrewd operator.  I simply don't care because I can't change anything - what's the point in fretting about thinks you have no control over?

My interests have always been about understanding what is happening the best I can and trying to use that to see what direction we are heading in and what bumps there may be ahead of us.

I don't see any point mourning about the past or what might have been - its gone and is never coming back.

Eddie may well be vastly underappreciated by many, but that's because most people simply only care about what is on the pitch and don't give a fig about the man (or woman) burning through their fortunes keeping the good times going.

If Sharon and her mates suddenly stopped funding the club and we start falling down the leagues and selling every player we can to keep solvent, then the current 'love in' for her will soon evaporate and she will start to get dogs abuse and all the good things she's done (or perceived to have done) will be instantly forgotten.

That's how it works.

I've played the game with you Bob, I did enjoy it but I've had enough now.

I suggest you move on too but I suspect you somehow can't.

I'm more interested now in the FV years, I still don't believe they are here just to play football owners but four years on (Sharon only had a three year plan when she bought us remember!) no other obvious explanation as been forthcoming.

Well it's their money they are spending (apart from the £4.5m that BWFC fans have backed them with!) so I'll let them get on with it - but I'll still pour over the accounts and share ownership statements when they are published trying my best to make sense of them, with your help hopefully still.

And finally the verruca was bazuka(ed) - I can vouch for it having used it in real life from many years back.

Onwards and upwards Bob, eh!

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Verrucagate seems to have garnered a fair few views and viewers, Sluffy, and who is to say that some of 'em didn't learn summat. You might have even learned summat yourself.

And I  couldn't help noticing just today that our erstwhile owner and chairman is still a person of considerable interest to those wise and worthy individuals that comprise the readership of Bolton's most esteemed journalist.

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

This site's gone more sleepy than Sleepy Joe. Lets have a heated debate.
Who pocketed the most from Eddie's £millions?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:This site's gone more sleepy than Sleepy Joe. Lets have a heated debate.
Who pocketed the most from Eddie's £millions?

I would imagine BWFC 'consumed' much of his millions but didn't 'pocket' them, rather they were a conduit to others.

I suggest that perhaps the person who benefited most was a player who was a regular first teamer who spent many years of his career when we were in the Premier League - I nominate therefore Kevin Davies.

One could argue that the players wages were from BFWC rather than ED but then again there probably would have been a BWFC team in the PL for the likes of KD to be come millionaires with unless ED hadn't put his millions into in the first place?

If we accept that line of thinking, then HMRC most probably gained the most by it from taxing the players, the staff, the hotel staff, VAT on sales and club merchandise, etc, etc, than any individual player such as KD.

Then again ED's family would have benefited from his money in terms of 'loving husband' and 'bank of dad' rather than 'pocketed' and 'inherited' his estate on ED's death.

I think the game you were angling for was some sort of a debate over Anderson and Holdsworth but I suspect they are probably several places lower down on the list behind the government's exchequer, ED's wife and kids and several BWFC players.

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

I was thinking about HMRC too, Sluffy. Footie clubs (and most owners) are real cash cows for the Exchequer. 

I have no idea how much (or little) Eddie had left when he died but it would have been a helluva lot more if he hadn't decided to 'invest' in BWFC. His kids seemed to lead very modest lifestyles in the IOM and probably still do. Their mother, Eddie's first wife Jean, was living in Onchan last I heard.

There's a long list of players that cost the club loadsamoney for precious little in return. Keith Andrews, Marvin Sordell and Ben Amos immediately spring to mind.

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

I see that Eddie's son, Roger, raised £28,000 for Manx Cancer Help earlier this year.

Well done him but a relatively small amount compared to the near £200m Eddie spent on BWFC.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/thousands-raised-in-a-million-steps/

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

In the ten years SKD was at the club, BWFC lost over £150m all of it funded by irrecoverable loans from Eddie Davies. Not SKD's fault, of course, but the reality of the situation didn't seem to get through to him when he publicly complained about not getting another contract on his 36th birthday. So off he toddled to PNE with an owner who still had a few £millions to spare.

But it was his maligning of Michael James that proved to me that SKD was living in the cloud cuckoo land inhabited by a lot of footballers and ex-footballers.

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

If I remember correctly this thread had had only a handful of views when I picked up on it about six weeks ago. Its now had over 3,000.

Could it be that 'the bots' are following Bob's every word and every move or is it Sluffy they are following? Lets have a heated debate.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Ten Bobsworth wrote:If I remember correctly this thread had had only a handful of views when I picked up on it about six weeks ago. Its now had over 3,000.

Could it be that 'the bots' are following Bob's every word and every move or is it Sluffy they are following? Lets have a heated debate.
We all know my own personal thread is the only reason for coming on here.
Where else can you hear about gay, Jewish bullfighters?
I hate it when the chorus line gets bolshy. Very Happy

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

boltonbonce wrote:
We all know my own personal thread is the only reason for coming on here.
Where else can you hear about gay, Jewish bullfighters?
I hate it when the chorus line gets bolshy. Very Happy
Gay, Jewish bullfighters and now an attention-seeking trans complaining about the chorus line. You need to calm down a bit, Boncey.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Gay, Jewish bullfighters and now an attention-seeking trans complaining about the chorus line. You need to calm down a bit, Boncey.
I'm a star! I'm temperamental!


Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:If I remember correctly this thread had had only a handful of views when I picked up on it about six weeks ago. Its now had over 3,000.

Could it be that 'the bots' are following Bob's every word and every move or is it Sluffy they are following? Lets have a heated debate.

Sluffy wrote:Fwiw, I thought Bob was talking about the 'Administrator - striking down the £7.5m security of EDT and KA' thread of which these are the stats...

 McGinlay, Kevin Davies and Bergsson urge Eddie Davies to act swiftly to stave off administration [ 1, 2, ... , 5, 6 ] by karlypants 107 3065 Mon Sep 04, 2023 10:53 pm by Ten Bobsworth View latest post

https://boltonnuts.forumotion.co.uk/f21-bolton-wanderers-news

Again if we use your reasoning which seems to be as reasonable as any...

...there has been 107 posts so 10 real views per post, totals 1,070 with again 60% more views than would have been expected.

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Your 'striking down', Sluffy, is actually the Administrator ignoring the facts in pursuit of the Administrator's agenda. Your various claims, assertions and convictions that the Administrator would never do such a thing are just plain wrong.

If you could finally get that into your head you might just begin to think about what the Administrator's agenda was.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Your 'striking down', Sluffy, is actually the Administrator ignoring the facts in pursuit of the Administrator's agenda. Your various claims, assertions and convictions that the Administrator would never do such a thing is just plain wrong.

If you could finally get that into your head you might just begin to think about what the Administrator's agenda was

Finally get it in to my head???

Are you having some sort of senior moment???

I've already publicly stated that I was WRONG with my narrative...

Sluffy wrote:The Administer in this case seemed to have voided charges.

I put forward the narrative that a reason for this could simply be because he used the powers in law he had available to him.

I never claimed he did - in fact I stated several times I didn't know what he did because I hadn't knowledge of what actions he really took and whatever his reasons were for doing so.

You for reasons best known to yourself got it locked into your head that I seemingly believed the Administrator (and presumably any other person who ever held a position of responsibility) to be somehow and unquestionable right!


Sluffy wrote:So yes Bob, you were right, the Administrator could not have used Insolvency law to void KA's security, as he reports that KA was indeed a secured creditor.

His reason given for reducing the amounts of EDT and KA was simply because that is what the companies accounts showed them to be.


"The amount outstanding to Fildraw in respect of these borrowings is disclosed in the Company's records as £10,050,000"

Page 17 of 39  - 10.1 Secured Creditors - Fildraw.

"The Company's records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson as £1.578,042

Page 17 of 39  - 10.1 Secured Creditors - Kenneth Anderson.

I'm pleased for you, I've always stated that you are the best I've come across for knowledge of accounts, and for the record I've never claimed that you were wrong but rather my narrative (proved to be wrong now) gave an alternative and believable scenario, than an Administrator deliberately acted in someway underhandedly and for EDT and KA to walkaway after, on the face of it, losing £7.5m each!

Well done.

But what has it achieved you?

The forensic audit of the accounts would have showed the company records for EDT and KA to be what they were, and everybody and their dog has long since packed up their tent, picked up their ball and gone home and forgotten about all of this.

What exactly are you trying to prove and to whom?

Does anyone but yourself even care?

Whatever it is I hope now it brings you some peace, some closure.

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

What I think you actually mean, Sluffy, is that you would like any further exploration of what really happened closed down because you were eventually forced to conclude that you were wrong but still had to wrap it in several paragraphs of diversionary, water-muddying waffle that tbh I had become weary of reading.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

This must be what it'll be like if Bert & Ernie ever split up.

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

lol!

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

One other simple fact is that Nuts remains the only place that anyone interested in what really happened at Bolton Wanderers can find any considered or informed discourse and Sluffy, despite imo occasionally going off at tangents, has to be thanked for allowing it to happen at all.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:One other simple fact is that Nuts remains the only place that anyone interested in what really happened at Bolton Wanderers can find any considered or informed discourse and Sluffy, despite imo occasionally going off at tangents, has to be thanked for allowing it to happen at all.

First of all, thank you for that Bob but even so I still need to reply to you to your earlier post.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:What I think you actually mean, Sluffy, is that you would like any further exploration of what really happened closed down because you were eventually forced to conclude that you were wrong but still had to wrap it in several paragraphs of diversionary, water-muddying waffle that tbh I had become weary of reading.

No Bob, I certainly don't mean any of that.

If you want to explain in detail what you believe happened then go ahead.

But you never actually do, do you?

I wasn't 'forced' to conclude I was wrong - I repeatedly stated that I didn't know what had happened but was aware that Insolvency Law give the Administrator certain powers, one of which being that he could strike off secured loans.

I simply put forward a narrative that maybe that was one alternative to explain his actions.

You shot it down - big deal - I was wrong.

I'm not ashamed I got it wrong, Christ I stated often enough that my knowledge of mergers and acquisitions and insolvency of private companies leading to Administration and Liquidation was zero before the club fell into it all.

I stepped into your world as I wanted to learn, you helped but it soon became apparent that you had your own personal agenda, your biases, prejudices and conspiracies of long standing.

I've no interest with the torch you wish to carry, that's your business, all I wanted was some understanding of what was happening and where all this was leading us (BWFC) in to the future.

I'm not here to plot against you - if that's what you may think - by suggesting the Administrator acted legally - after all that is what they usually do isn't it?

And if he had not, then why did no one cry 'foul' - after all a combined total of £15m was at stake yet both sides clearly accepted the Administrators ruling fully.

Why would they take such a loss and do absolutely nothing about it then?

I (and I would imagine everyone else) have not got the foggiest idea why something that happen THREE YEARS ago, in which EVERYBODY who were effected ACCEPTED the Administrators ruling and have ALL since settled their claims, ruled a line under it all and moved on with their lives but why you have chosen not to?

You clearly appear to be fixated over some perceived injustice/injustices that occurred several years ago or more, that everyone - including all those you who suffered from these injustices - have fully accepted and moved on from.

You might well be right for all I know that the injustices were really and people suffered greatly from them - but everybody except you have long since moved on with their lives and put it far behind them.

What point then are you trying to prove and to whom???

If you want to think of me as some moron for not understanding this and all the plot twists and turns then do so.

I'm pretty sure that some people think much worse of me than that.

Have a nice day.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers News » McGinlay, Kevin Davies and Bergsson urge Eddie Davies to act swiftly to stave off administration

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