Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Wanderers in £2.5m funding hole but "players will be paid" insists co-owner Ken Anderson

+17
Bwfc1958
scottjames30
Fabians Right Peg
blasterbolton
JAH
terenceanne
wanderlust
boltonbonce
whatsgoingon
luckyPeterpiper
Natasha Whittam
Sluffy
MartinBWFC
Norpig
Hipster_Nebula
King Bill
Boggersbelief
21 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 12]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

A NEW financial cloud is hovering over Bolton Wanderers.

It is understood that £2.5million of funding promised as part of the club's takeover has not yet been provided.

The Bolton News has learned that without the injection of cash, players’ wages, worth nearly £1m and due at the end of this week, are under threat of not being paid this month.

But co-owner Ken Anderson, whose Inner Circle Investment Group guaranteed the investment to the Football League in March has denied there are imminent problems.

Proof of funding, worth £2.5m for the current season and another £6m for next season, was given by chairman Anderson when he agreed to buy the club from Eddie Davies alongside Dean Holdsworth.

Anderson has confirmed the money has not been moved into the club’s accounts but played down the seriousness of the situation, insisting players will be paid on time and that the money is available when necessary.

He told The Bolton News: “There has been no need to provide the funds so far, which are there if required. The players’ wages are being paid and there is no concern about the security of the money.”

Holdsworth – who declined to comment – provided the up-front funding for the takeover via a loan from Blumarble Capital Ltd which has been secured against club assets. That fee was reported at the time to be £5million.

The Football League may be forced to step in and investigate at Holdsworth’s behest, just 74 days after giving Sports Shield BWFC – the new company set up between Holdsworth and Anderson – permission to buy Wanderers.

But that likelihood has also been played down by Anderson, who added: “I can’t see any reason why either of the owners would ask the Football League to investigate or take action.”

The league only ratified the takeover at the last minute and warned they would be keeping a close eye on financial ins and outs, effectively putting the Whites in special measures until the summer of 2018.

Holdsworth and Anderson have both answered questions about their business plan by pointing to the fact the Football League gave it their approval.

“The Football League have an undertaking from me for a certain amount of money and that remains between the football club, the Football League and myself but there is an undertaking to put that money in,” Anderson said of his own financial commitment in March. “They checked I had that money, were happy and I got passed.”

But 11 weeks on there is no sign of the transfer embargo being lifted, statutory accounts are overdue since March 31 at Companies House and no a manager has still to be appointed, along with a board of directors.

Separately, the Bolton Wanderers Supporters’ Trust sent an official letter to the Football League asking for clarification on a number of issues regarding the takeover and the embargoes which have been put in place over the last six months.

Ian Bridge, interim chairman of the steering group, told The Bolton News: “We have sent a letter to the Football League following up previous contact regarding a list of questions and issues prior to the takeover being sanctioned."

The trust has also confirmed senior officials on the steering group have requested a meeting with Football League chief executive Sean Harvey and incoming chairman Ian Lenagan to address their concerns.

We contacted the Football League for their comment on the situation yesterday but are yet receive a reply.

Staff were paid as normal last week, a wage bill of nearly £500,000, but it is understood that without an injection of funds they may not be able to pay the wage bill for the football department which amounts to twice the amount.

Costs continue to mount and wages alone will total £4m until the end of June.

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

Guest


Guest

Well, my thoughts are already well documented, so I'm saying nowt.

Not surprised though....

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

So money is there, no one has not been paid yet and the pro ST loving LoV broke yet another story with no facts involved and we find out the ST have been trying to stick the knife into the new owners backs by shit stirring about them to the Football league.

No hidden agenda there then.

And I'm the one who is obsessed apparently!

Rolling Eyes

Guest


Guest

Sluffy wrote:So money is there, no one has not been paid yet and the pro ST loving LoV broke yet another story with no facts involved and we find out the ST have been trying to stick the knife into the new owners backs by shit stirring about them to the Football league.

No hidden agenda there then.

And I'm the one who is obsessed apparently!

Rolling Eyes

Certainly proved you have no agenda there.

Guest


Guest

However you read it, there's certainly a rift between the two of them - that's clear from the lack of a comment from Holdsworth and Anderson's jibe about not seeing why either of them would go crying to the FL.

And that can't be good for the club's future.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

bwfc1874 wrote:
Sluffy wrote:So money is there, no one has not been paid yet and the pro ST loving LoV broke yet another story with no facts involved and we find out the ST have been trying to stick the knife into the new owners backs by shit stirring about them to the Football league.

No hidden agenda there then.

And I'm the one who is obsessed apparently!

Rolling Eyes

Certainly proved you have no agenda there.

So,

Iles quotes Anderson as saying he has the money, he's proved it to the FL and it will be there on time for the players wages.

Which directly contradicts LoV's allegation that it wouldn't.

The same LoV that one of the Steering Group wrote for and whose 'owner' is Chris 'join the ST now' Manning the author who wrote the article.

Whilst Iles breaks the news that the (unelected) Steering Group has been banging on the FL's door about issues of the new owners.

All facts I'm sure even you will agree.



You're clearly wumming and being argumentative for just for the hell of it.

Or have you got a long held hidden agenda yourself perhaps?

Boggersbelief

Boggersbelief
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Breadman wrote:However you read it, there's certainly a rift between the two of them - that's clear from the lack of a comment from Holdsworth and Anderson's jibe about not seeing why either of them would go crying to the FL.

And that can't be good for the club's future.

Atleast you'll win your bet.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Boggersbelief wrote:
Atleast you'll win your bet.

At least, pal.

King Bill

King Bill
David Lee
David Lee

As I read it, Anderson doesn't need to open his little wallet and pull out 2.5 million pounds yet.

So there must be enough available ready cash floating about at the moment in the Wanderers coffers to cover all bills and outgoings. 

I cannot for one moment believe there is enough 'next season' ticket money flooding in to cover current costs.

Anyone know of any other revenue streams which are currently keeping the club afloat ?

Guest


Guest

Sluffy wrote:
bwfc1874 wrote:
Sluffy wrote:So money is there, no one has not been paid yet and the pro ST loving LoV broke yet another story with no facts involved and we find out the ST have been trying to stick the knife into the new owners backs by shit stirring about them to the Football league.

No hidden agenda there then.

And I'm the one who is obsessed apparently!

Rolling Eyes

Certainly proved you have no agenda there.

So,

Iles quotes Anderson as saying he has the money, he's proved it to the FL and it will be there on time for the players wages.

Which directly contradicts LoV's allegation that it wouldn't.

The same LoV that one of the Steering Group wrote for and whose 'owner' is Chris 'join the ST now' Manning the author who wrote the article.

Whilst Iles breaks the news that the (unelected) Steering Group has been banging on the FL's door about issues of the new owners.

All facts I'm sure even you will agree.



You're clearly wumming and being argumentative for just for the hell of it.

Or have you got a long held hidden agenda yourself perhaps?

I've no idea what's true, but you should know better than to believe Iles reporting and Anderson's word. I'd almost say you'd believe whatever anybody says just so long as it suits your narrative.

Hipster_Nebula

Hipster_Nebula
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Anderson definitely wouldn't lie.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

bwfc1874 wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
bwfc1874 wrote:
Sluffy wrote:So money is there, no one has not been paid yet and the pro ST loving LoV broke yet another story with no facts involved and we find out the ST have been trying to stick the knife into the new owners backs by shit stirring about them to the Football league.

No hidden agenda there then.

And I'm the one who is obsessed apparently!

Rolling Eyes

Certainly proved you have no agenda there.

So,

Iles quotes Anderson as saying he has the money, he's proved it to the FL and it will be there on time for the players wages.

Which directly contradicts LoV's allegation that it wouldn't.

The same LoV that one of the Steering Group wrote for and whose 'owner' is Chris 'join the ST now' Manning the author who wrote the article.

Whilst Iles breaks the news that the (unelected) Steering Group has been banging on the FL's door about issues of the new owners.

All facts I'm sure even you will agree.



You're clearly wumming and being argumentative for just for the hell of it.

Or have you got a long held hidden agenda yourself perhaps?

I've no idea what's true, but you should know better than to believe Iles reporting and Anderson's word. I'd almost say you'd believe whatever anybody says just so long as it suits your narrative.

It is a direct QUOTE ffs!

Wasn't you one of those sounding off about not giving the new owners any time to get established?

Seems to be you are the one that are twisting things to fit what you want to hear - not me!!!

Guest


Guest

'Wasn't you one of those?' Has Scott taken over your account?

I don't see the correlation in your reply to be honest, why can't Anderson blag in an interview? I'm not saying he definitely is, although the signs aren't great, just saying that (yet again) you decide things are fact with next to no evidence. How many people are agreeing with your POV? No need to get annoyed, just an observation.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Breadman wrote:However you read it, there's certainly a rift between the two of them - that's clear from the lack of a comment from Holdsworth and Anderson's jibe about not seeing why either of them would go crying to the FL.

And that can't be good for the club's future.
this is the big worry for me, if they have fallen out already it destabilises the club even more, it wouldn't surprise me to see one of them pull the plug soon and leave us back staring at administration

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

In all honesty I'd take administration right now, if only to rid us of all this uncertainty, take the hit, get a new buyer, Anderson was brought on board with the hope his contacts would come forward with finances.

That clearly has not worked, best thing for the club now, is to call in the administrators, and sell.
I have no doubt Holdsworth has the clubs interest at heart, he just had the mis-direction of inviting Anderson along for the ride.

We'll come back from admin eventually, but at the end of the day, the blame for all of this lies at the feet of Edwin Davies and Phil Gartside, but for our future we need to rid ourselves of these plastic owners.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

bwfc1874 wrote:'Wasn't you one of those?' Has Scott taken over your account?

I don't see the correlation in your reply to be honest, why can't Anderson blag in an interview? I'm not saying he definitely is, although the signs aren't great, just saying that (yet again) you decide things are fact with next to no evidence. How many people are agreeing with your POV? No need to get annoyed, just an observation.

Why would he lie - he didn't even have to comment in the first place - just like Holdsworth didn't!

He would soon be found out if that was the case anyway if the wages aren't paid in just a few days time. If that was the case no one would trust his word ever again.

No mate, you are twisting this all you can just so you can carry on arguing for arguments sake.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

MartinBWFC wrote:In all honesty I'd take administration right now, if only to rid us of all this uncertainty, take the hit, get a new buyer, Anderson was brought on board with the hope his contacts would come forward with finances.

That clearly has not worked, best thing for the club now, is to call in the administrators, and sell.
I have no doubt Holdsworth has the clubs interest at heart, he just had the mis-direction of inviting Anderson along for the ride.

We'll come back from admin eventually, but at the end of the day, the blame for all of this lies at the feet of Edwin Davies and Phil Gartside, but for our future we need to rid ourselves of these plastic owners.

Why would the owners want to enter Administration when they don't actually owe anybody anything yet?

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Ken Anderson wrote:There has been no need to provide the funds so far, which are there if required. The players’ wages are being paid and there is no concern about the security of the money.

So a sensible explanation is given yet everyone jumps on this as some sort of admission we have no cash.

I honestly think if we did go bust some of you would be over the moon.

Twats.

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

Found this little titbit at the end of the article quite intriguing as it may explain just why LoV were trying to push the panic button yesterday. I really thought Manning wouldn't tell such a barefaced lie on purpose but I might just be wrong, he may well be that stupid.

Anyway here's the line from the end of the Beano article that caught my eye:

"Separately, the Bolton Wanderers Supporters’ Trust sent an official letter to the Football League asking for clarification on a number of issues regarding the takeover and the embargoes which have been put in place over the last six months."

Really? How did the ST manage to send an official letter? There's no chairman, no treasurer, no secretary, no elected committee. So which of our fine elected officers signed this missive? Manning perhaps?

To be honest I've said I don't like the way things are being done at the ST (which doesn't technically exist yet) from the off so may well be seen as having almost as much of an agenda as sluffy but I can't help thinking the article Manning posted yesterday on his site and this "official" letter are a deliberate attempt to de-stabilise the new owners in a bid to try and get them out so the "ST" (using the quotes advisedly) can make itself look big and powerful.

I think Anderson's telling it like it is here. The money's there and the players will be paid on time. The "ST" and BN appear to be colluding to either drive a wedge between Ken and Dean or drive them out altogether with stories that are half truths and outright lies.

Guest


Guest

Sluffy wrote:
bwfc1874 wrote:'Wasn't you one of those?' Has Scott taken over your account?

I don't see the correlation in your reply to be honest, why can't Anderson blag in an interview? I'm not saying he definitely is, although the signs aren't great, just saying that (yet again) you decide things are fact with next to no evidence. How many people are agreeing with your POV? No need to get annoyed, just an observation.

Why would he lie - he didn't even have to comment in the first place - just like Holdsworth didn't!

He would soon be found out if that was the case anyway if the wages aren't paid in just a few days time.  If that was the case no one would trust his word ever again.

No mate, you are twisting this all you can just so you can carry on arguing for arguments sake.


So you don't think there's any chance at all Ken would blag in this situation to keep the heat off him? Not saying he is, but it's clearly not the totally unbelievable chain of events you're trying to make it out to be.

You do the same thing everytime anybody dares question you, false incredulity and claim they're being deliberately argumentative. You should recognise that you're in the minority with your views on the ST and other opinions are valid.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 12]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

Reply to topic

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum