The way I've put the story together was that Holdsworth implausibly turned up out of the blue - with NO MONEY - to rescue the club from the 'evil' Eddie Davies.
Now I've had a fondness for places I've worked at over the years but I've never once though, 'you know what, I'll risk bankrupting myself to save the old place from debt, even though it has no chance of remotely even turning a profit for the next year or two because of the loss making contracts it as to honour until then'!
Anyway let us just say in the unlikely event I actually did something so stupid, I still had to find myself a 'money' partner to actually make it happen.
My first choice seemed to have ended up in prison recently, another I was linked to had a very unhealthy reputation and the one I walked into court with bailed out at the last second leaving me ending up with Anderson.
Obviously some sort of deal must have been struck - but who shafted who?
That is of course if ANY shafting was done by any side.
How would it seem fair for me to own half a club, when I couldn't pay any running costs at all - having no money like.
I can't believe Anderson would have no inkling of Holdsworth's financial position and must have negotiated his partnership with him accordingly.
Maybe, just maybe there was a thought that investment into Sports Shield might have been Holdsworth financial input - but seeing the company was only founded like the week before he took over the club this seems unlikely to me.
I honestly can't think why Holdsworth was involved in any way in buying the club other than to be a front piece for some unnamed backer behind him - it simply doesn't make any sense otherwise does it?
Then mix into the story of Birch asking the ST that literally popped up into being overnight just before the takeover (very suspicious that) to become a rival bid to Holdsworth.
So you had someone with no reason or money on the face of it, trying to buy the club from a group who had no money who was put up to being the rival bidder by the agent of the person who already owned the club!?!
Ok, let all that pass - we now have Holdsworth (no money) and Anderson owning the club.
So why did Anderson have to plot to shaft Holdsworth out of it - like a great many seem to believe?
Seems obvious from day one that Holdsworth could never uphold his financial part of an equal partnership to me - unless of course there was someone in the background pulling his strings and financing him.
Also seems reasonable to me for Anderson to say we both pay equally or if you can't you only get to keep whatever percentage of the club you can afford to finance out of your pocket.
That doesn't sound like shafting anyone to me.
It also seems like the two had come to an agreement to do just this - hence the proposed public Q and A - until someone stuck their beak in and caused all this shit at the last minute.
I wonder who are the only people to gain with Anderson getting shafted like this and talk of Administration to appear once again???
I also don't buy into this canonisation (and soon to be martyrdom) of St Dean Holdsworth either - 'I do it not for me but for the fans' bollocks.
Holdsworth has never been in this on his own, someone else as been in the background pulling his strings. Who, I don't know.
But it's got to be better for the club to have Anderson with a plan to take the club forwards than for people with agendas to get us placed into Administration - surely?
Or am I being a bit stupid and missing something glaringly obvious?