Home
With one raise of a hand, around 1,000 people witnessed the birth of the Bolton Wanderers Supporters’ Trust – and yet strangely there are some who still doubt its existence.
Can a supposedly elected body exist without an election? Can the BWFCST claim to be operational without having a bank account to take money from its members? Well, the short answer is yes.
But the speed at which the Trust has pressed ahead with plans to take over the club has caught some by surprise, and lent an air of suspicion to what would ideally be a united front.
Once the Trust became a legal entity and registered it was bound by a set of model rules, which can be found in their 21-page document on the BWFCST website, or that of Supporters Direct.
Thankfully, the relevant bit is just three pages down. Under section five – intriguingly entitled “powers” – there is a wordy passage that essentially underlines the fact a Trust can pursue the ownership of a club, secure accountable representation on a board, or exert the “greatest possible influence” on governance and management simply by its very existence.
In the current climate mistrust is understandable. But as we know, with another High Court hearing just a couple of weeks away, time is of the essence.
Eddie Davies has clearly not had a bid to turn his head; that much is obvious. How long that continues rests in the hands of the two or three other parties, who have thus far failed to convince him they are the real deal.
The Trust can’t afford to hang around, so to coin a local phrase, they’ve put “dibs in” before really being set up to do so.
Individuals, businesses and organisations like the University of Bolton have pledged enough financial support to make them believe they have a shot at owning the club. It is an intriguing idea, and anyone who has studied the recent history of Scottish club Heart of Midlothian will tell you it is possible.
The anonymity of many of the funders is bound to cause a stir. The Trust has denied any links with the current board, and almost anyone who has poked their head above the parapet to speak on their behalf has withdrawn their name from any potential election – more’s the pity, in my own view.
Until we know exactly who is putting money in, the Orwellian references won’t disappear but to use another literary reference – Catch 22 – the Trust cannot expect to convince Eddie Davies to give them preferred bidder status until they have a valid bid.
Back when Davies took a majority shareholding in 2003, effectively rendering a lot of fans’ investments worthless, there was a clear line of guidance from within the club that his investment was the only option and that the local-lad-made-good must be voted in at the AGM.
Wanderers’ input in this takeover has been rather more passive. The club has made no secret of its dialogue with the Trust, in fact quite the contrary. But despite the idea of having support at board level there is a reluctance to pin their colours to the mast in public.
Whether Davies agrees that they are the way forward is the million dollar question, or perhaps more accurately £185million.
In making a public play to be named preferred bidder the Trust has changed the landscape in this takeover. Their statement flushed out another long-time watcher in Roger Tamraz, who made his own set of public declarations but has done little since, and it also coincided with Sports Shield – long-time frontrunners in all this – taking a step back to think.
The owner’s thoughts are another unknown. Many fans feel Davies has lost the right to have his own feelings taken into consideration in all this – and there is no question his PR has been a disaster. It is worth noting, however, that this situation could get worse for Wanderers and as Portsmouth and Leeds United could probably tell you, there is nothing worse than an owner scorned.
Fans don’t want to be told what to think but they do want information on all the available options. I’m encouraged to see the trust is tackling individual concerns – and I am told that one of the founder registrars, Ian Bridge, is more than willing to take questions on his own email at ian@BWFCST.co.uk. I don’t think you can ask for much fairer than that.
Source
Can a supposedly elected body exist without an election? Can the BWFCST claim to be operational without having a bank account to take money from its members? Well, the short answer is yes.
But the speed at which the Trust has pressed ahead with plans to take over the club has caught some by surprise, and lent an air of suspicion to what would ideally be a united front.
Once the Trust became a legal entity and registered it was bound by a set of model rules, which can be found in their 21-page document on the BWFCST website, or that of Supporters Direct.
Thankfully, the relevant bit is just three pages down. Under section five – intriguingly entitled “powers” – there is a wordy passage that essentially underlines the fact a Trust can pursue the ownership of a club, secure accountable representation on a board, or exert the “greatest possible influence” on governance and management simply by its very existence.
In the current climate mistrust is understandable. But as we know, with another High Court hearing just a couple of weeks away, time is of the essence.
Eddie Davies has clearly not had a bid to turn his head; that much is obvious. How long that continues rests in the hands of the two or three other parties, who have thus far failed to convince him they are the real deal.
The Trust can’t afford to hang around, so to coin a local phrase, they’ve put “dibs in” before really being set up to do so.
Individuals, businesses and organisations like the University of Bolton have pledged enough financial support to make them believe they have a shot at owning the club. It is an intriguing idea, and anyone who has studied the recent history of Scottish club Heart of Midlothian will tell you it is possible.
The anonymity of many of the funders is bound to cause a stir. The Trust has denied any links with the current board, and almost anyone who has poked their head above the parapet to speak on their behalf has withdrawn their name from any potential election – more’s the pity, in my own view.
Until we know exactly who is putting money in, the Orwellian references won’t disappear but to use another literary reference – Catch 22 – the Trust cannot expect to convince Eddie Davies to give them preferred bidder status until they have a valid bid.
Back when Davies took a majority shareholding in 2003, effectively rendering a lot of fans’ investments worthless, there was a clear line of guidance from within the club that his investment was the only option and that the local-lad-made-good must be voted in at the AGM.
Wanderers’ input in this takeover has been rather more passive. The club has made no secret of its dialogue with the Trust, in fact quite the contrary. But despite the idea of having support at board level there is a reluctance to pin their colours to the mast in public.
Whether Davies agrees that they are the way forward is the million dollar question, or perhaps more accurately £185million.
In making a public play to be named preferred bidder the Trust has changed the landscape in this takeover. Their statement flushed out another long-time watcher in Roger Tamraz, who made his own set of public declarations but has done little since, and it also coincided with Sports Shield – long-time frontrunners in all this – taking a step back to think.
The owner’s thoughts are another unknown. Many fans feel Davies has lost the right to have his own feelings taken into consideration in all this – and there is no question his PR has been a disaster. It is worth noting, however, that this situation could get worse for Wanderers and as Portsmouth and Leeds United could probably tell you, there is nothing worse than an owner scorned.
Fans don’t want to be told what to think but they do want information on all the available options. I’m encouraged to see the trust is tackling individual concerns – and I am told that one of the founder registrars, Ian Bridge, is more than willing to take questions on his own email at ian@BWFCST.co.uk. I don’t think you can ask for much fairer than that.
Source
