Bolton Wanderers Supporters' Trust wait on Eddie Davies verdict over preferred bidder status

The Bolton Wandereres Supporters Trust say they are working closely with the club to prove they should be given preferred bidder status by owner Eddie Davies.

The trust released a statement last night to assure members they are in “constant dialogue” with officials at Wanderers as they look to progress their own takeover effort.

Discussions have continued with around 30 businesses and local organisations that could provide the financial muscle to run the club.

Although Portsmouth’s fan-led takeover has been their most prominent role model, it is understood the BWFCST has also been speaking with the “Foundation of Hearts” who took over the Edinburgh club last year with a similar community-funded bid.

A bank account is still being set up to allow the first membership fees to be taken, while the steering group is also working towards the first elections.

“It is clear that the Trust itself could not takeover the club alone,” the BWFCST said. “So we have been continuing to look at how a community-led takeover could work and how other trusts have been able to be an active partner in any takeover of their club.

“Obviously we have worked very closely with the Pompey Trust and are now speaking to a number of others to ensure we have as much information as possible to take forward.

“Our request for preferred bidder status is still being considered by the club, and we are working closely with them to show why a community-led takeover, where the supporters’ trust is a central pillar, would be the best option.”

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

I think it's time to consider setting up FC Bolton.

I don't understand it.

Is the ST established or not? - If not how can they seek ANYTHING until they are, let alone Preferred Bidder Status?

If the ST is not established, who then is making these decisions in its name to contact local businesses to obtain funding to buy the club in partnership with them - on whose authority have they got to do that?

If they themselves say they have not got enough money to takeover the club why then should any business want to enter into partnership with them and fund them to do so? Why not simply buy the club directly (in a consortium with others willing to invest)?


To my way of thinking the ST seems simply to be a vehicle that is being used through which anonymous unnamed others take control of the club.

How open, honest, democratic and transparent is that?



And some people think it is me with the hidden agenda!!!

they are trying to base it on the Pompey model where they have a number of rich benefactors who put in the bulk of the money and the ST own a smaller percentage of the club. I don't think the ST wants to buy the club outright but it's only my opinion.

The ST do seem to be trying to run before they can walk but unless Saint Eddie actually sells the club to someone else then what choice do we have?

They are opening a bank account so presumably they have been established as a legal entity in some form or another.

Rather than keep banging on about whether they exist or not is it not possible to simply ask them if they are now a company? And if so, what kind of company.

wanderlust wrote:They are opening a bank account so presumably they have been established as a legal entity in some form or another.

Rather than keep banging on about whether they exist or not is it not possible to simply ask them if they are now a company? And if so, what kind of company.

I sent a message asking precisely that to their website about a week ago, just after I heard Hurst on the radio outlining their (lack of a) plan.

No response.

Sluffy wrote:I don't understand it.

Is the ST established or not?  - If not how can they seek ANYTHING until they are, let alone Preferred Bidder Status?

If the ST is not established, who then is making these decisions in its name to contact local businesses to obtain funding to buy the club in partnership with them - on whose authority have they got to do that?

If they themselves say they have not got enough money to takeover the club why then should any business want to enter into partnership with them and fund them to do so?  Why not simply buy the club directly (in a consortium with others willing to invest)?


To my way of thinking the ST seems simply to be a vehicle that is being used through which anonymous unnamed others take control of the club.

How open, honest, democratic and transparent is that?



And some people think it is me with the hidden agenda!!!

I don't understand it myself. How is this better than having some billionaire own the club out right with money to pump in whenever he feels like it. How is money raised from these local businesses when we need a new player or equipment etc. Maybe someone will organize a whip around of all concerned each time somat is needed. It all sounds like BS to me at this point.  Not to mention who has the last word in this situation?  Further, this will not be resolved in time for the next hearing.....why o why is every fooking thing a production at BWFC?

okocha wrote:Karly reports that "Discussions have continued with around 30 businesses and local organisations that could provide the financial muscle to run the club." 


The operative word here is "could". Way too airy-fairy to be satisfactory. Where is the explanation of how  this is even possible?


 Like many others, I am mystified as to what appears to be a ridiculous pantomime of nonsensical vagueness

I am currently writing a report for a business, nothing to do with football, and I am shamelessly stealing this phrase, thanks okocha, its brilliant!

Feel free to use, Manda! 

BTW, it was good to see that we both appreciated Frank Finlay and acknowledge Ian Mckellan's talent. Kindred spirits?

 So many greats originate from the Bolton area:-  Ahhh, you can take the boy/girl out of Bolton, but you can't take Bolton out of them....

Personally I was disappointed okocha didn't end his sentence with a full stop. Schoolboy error.

The use of a lower case "o" in his user name, as opposed to the more traditional (and correct) capital letter which denotes a proper name is the bit that's troubling me.

If I'm honest......

Bolton School....? Pfff...!

At least I put a comma between "use" and "Manda". Otherwise, the sense of the sentence might have been very different!

BTW, Nat, you needed a comma after "Personally", and, Breadman, you needed to include a comma after "name". 

However, these are trivialities that only irritating pedants would point out....not me! (Unless they were responding in kind for a (very small) laugh! 

What's more, who says I went to Bolton School?

Chairmanda wrote:

okocha wrote:Karly reports that "Discussions have continued with around 30 businesses and local organisations that could provide the financial muscle to run the club." 


The operative word here is "could". Way too airy-fairy to be satisfactory. Where is the explanation of how  this is even possible?


 Like many others, I am mystified as to what appears to be a ridiculous pantomime of nonsensical vagueness

I am currently writing a report for a business, nothing to do with football, and I am shamelessly stealing this phrase, thanks okocha, its brilliant!

That phrase is loaded with connotations and non-specific inferences relating to incompetence and elusiveness so I'd be very wary of using it in a report for a business (as opposed to a report about a business which the owners wouldn't see) 
Apart from opting for more measured language I would be more factual and identify the specific issues, cause and effect because this phrase is too...well, vague.

They still haven't set up a bank account? Sorry it takes five minutes, and they reckon they can run a club?

We will be in the conference with these shady bastards thats for sure.

wanderlust wrote:

Chairmanda wrote:

okocha wrote:Karly reports that "Discussions have continued with around 30 businesses and local organisations that could provide the financial muscle to run the club." 


The operative word here is "could". Way too airy-fairy to be satisfactory. Where is the explanation of how  this is even possible?


 Like many others, I am mystified as to what appears to be a ridiculous pantomime of nonsensical vagueness

I am currently writing a report for a business, nothing to do with football, and I am shamelessly stealing this phrase, thanks okocha, its brilliant!

That phrase is loaded with connotations and non-specific inferences relating to incompetence and elusiveness so I'd be very wary of using it in a report for a business (as opposed to a report about a business which the owners wouldn't see) 
Apart from opting for more measured language I would be more factual and identify the specific issues, cause and effect because this phrase is too...well, vague.

trust me lusty, it fits, and is used to describe one of their competitors latest marketing campaigns (having already dissected it in detail)

Chairmanda wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Chairmanda wrote:

okocha wrote:Karly reports that "Discussions have continued with around 30 businesses and local organisations that could provide the financial muscle to run the club." 


The operative word here is "could". Way too airy-fairy to be satisfactory. Where is the explanation of how  this is even possible?


 Like many others, I am mystified as to what appears to be a ridiculous pantomime of nonsensical vagueness

I am currently writing a report for a business, nothing to do with football, and I am shamelessly stealing this phrase, thanks okocha, its brilliant!

That phrase is loaded with connotations and non-specific inferences relating to incompetence and elusiveness so I'd be very wary of using it in a report for a business (as opposed to a report about a business which the owners wouldn't see) 
Apart from opting for more measured language I would be more factual and identify the specific issues, cause and effect because this phrase is too...well, vague.

trust me lusty, it fits, and is used to describe one of their competitors latest marketing campaigns (having already dissected it in detail)

Fair enough - it's your gig and in this case it's context is about a competitor.

Should the ST buy the club?
Here is my answer!

It's as if Marc Iles has been reading all the comments about the lack of transparency surrounding the ST and the status of the ST as a legal entity. His article (in the news section) directly addresses the points made on here - not necessarily satisfactorily - but I'm now convinced Nuts is the source of his inspiration.

Marc Iles reads here as do members of the ST's Steering Group too.

I guess we might not be too popular with some of them but if they practiced what they preached and did things in the open and in full transparency then they would not be raising all the suspicions, doubts and (unanswered) questions as to what their true agenda is.

We would happily offer Nuts as a platform for the ST and / or Iles to use as a means of a way to hold daily ongoing dialogue with all BWFC fans and supporters free from any hidden agendas or point scoring from either side of the ST fence.

You have my word that it would be hosted impartially - and as a site run by fans, for the fans - with no outside influences on us (we don't run the site for profit or kudos) a fair and even handed dialogue of Q and A's can be obtained with no accusations of avoiding (and deleting) questions the ST seemingly do not want to address on their own media - and which simply will not go away until they are openly addressed.

If the ST and / or Marc have nothing to hide and do have the balls to do this then please pm (personal message) me and we will establish a way to do this so you don't feel as though you may be walking into some sort of trap.

The ball is in your court.

I really and truly hope you take us up on the offer particularly as the only thing we all do want is the best for the club!