Supporters Trust

gloswhite wrote:Welcome to the mad house 10/-  
I think somebody had been spiking Sluffy's cocoa, but he seems to be getting better now 

If he wasn't aware of it, Sluffy might find it interesting to look up the Derby County case. The circumstances were not entirely unlike Bolton's in that Derby were struggling with the financial impact of relegation from the Premiership, its major shareholder couldn't afford to put any more in and the Co-op Bank wanted its money back.

Enter 'the three amigos' who buy the club for £3 from a Receiver and mortgage its assets to a Panamanian outfit as security for a £15million loan.

'The three amigo's' decide they'd have a bit of a payout (£125,000 each plus VAT) but went to the trouble of disguising the payout via a fictitious invoice for services that hadn't been rendered from a company in Sidcup, Kent. That's where they and their Monaco-based advisor came unstuck.

Hhmm, you're very well informed. I shall have to take note of your posts methinks  

Wanderers Station interviewed Daniel Izza: Chairman of the Supporters Trust

1) What made you decide to get involved with the Supporters Trust?

I have been a supporter for40 years. I had become increasingly frustrated that the club was becoming more remote from the fans in the Gartside era. The events of winter 2015/6 convinced me that the ownership of the club should be broader with greater fan involvement and looking to integrate the club further into the Bolton community.

2) What role is the Trust currently playing?

To support the club, support the specific aim of promoting young talent, improving the matchday experience, keeping the views of the fans in the mind of the club, keeping the owners to account in respect of major decisions

3) How much is the Trust working with the club?

We are working closely with the club on several issues, a working relationship is essential. We remain independent and on other issues we are keeping the owners to account.

4) What do you make of the club’s current position on and off the pitch?

Delighted at the promotion as the increased revenue of the championship and the expiry of premier league legacy contracts mean that the club is closer to stability and sustainability. We are under no illusion that investment and lifting of the EFL embargo are huge priorities. After managing the difficult period to date, there needs to be a vision as to how the club is to move forward.

5) What are the Trust’s aims for the future?

As a community benefit society, we aim to promote the voice of the fan at the highest level within the club. Our aspiration is To help achieve greater success for the club

6) What are your predictions for this season?

The season must be about consolidation and stabilising the club. The removal of the embargo is a priority as without a broader squad, the club will find it difficult to compete. Being realistic and assuming we keep the restricted squad fit, I would hope for mid table.

Many thanks to Dan for his time.

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

That was a probing interview.

Natasha Whittam wrote:That was a probing interview.

What would you have asked?

BoltonTillIDie wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:That was a probing interview.

What would you have asked?

I don't expect I would have got an answer but I'd have asked him to rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the respective performances of Ken Anderson and Dean Holdsworth as directors of BWFC and Burnden Leisure.

I'd have asked what they were planning to do to improve the uptake of membership and generate fee income so they have the finances to back up their ambitions - which to date seem to be no more than rhetoric. I just don't understand why they might think that the current offering from the ST is a "must join" option because it's clearly not.

I joined when it first formed and paid my tenner but didn't pay when the renewal came round as i was far from happy with their performance.

Still wouldn't be happy to pay now to be honest, but they at least seem to be moving in the right direction so i'm not ruling out contributing again.

I did the same Norpig, paid the £10 in the hope it would at least help the club. Didn't pay the next year

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Welcome to the mad house 10/-  
I think somebody had been spiking Sluffy's cocoa, but he seems to be getting better now 

If he wasn't aware of it, Sluffy might find it interesting to look up the Derby County case. The circumstances were not entirely unlike Bolton's in that Derby were struggling with the financial impact of relegation from the Premiership, its major shareholder couldn't afford to put any more in and the Co-op Bank wanted its money back.

Enter 'the three amigos' who buy the club for £3 from a Receiver and mortgage its assets to a Panamanian outfit as security for a £15million loan.

'The three amigo's' decide they'd have a bit of a payout (£125,000 each plus VAT) but went to the trouble of disguising the payout via a fictitious invoice for services that hadn't been rendered from a company in Sidcup, Kent. That's where they and their Monaco-based advisor came unstuck.

It did ring a vague bell with me although I did not follow the story at the time and had no idea their ST was involved (or even that they had one at the back then).

Interestingly, reading the story below (see link), they bought the club for a pound each, obtained a loan from some sort of money lending business (seemingly putting no money of their own into the club) then paid themselves a hefty commission for arranging the loan.

Sound familiar anyone?

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


I'm not naive enough not to believe that with football clubs, players and agents a washed with billion of pounds of Sky money over the last 25 years that the Derby case is an isolated example but off the top of my head I can't think of another high profile case where anyone was caught and jailed for such shenanigans.

How many other ST's have found wrong doing at their respective clubs in all this time?  Even Blackpool's ST have yet to land a glove on their bete noir the Oysten's.

To be blunt though it is not the job of the ST's to police their respective clubs, that is a matter for the footballing bodies and the police.

In fact what exactly has our ST actually achieved to date - (an open question and not aimed directly at you Ten Bob) apart from pissing away the vast majority of peoples goodwill it had from its formation?

It has just sponsored three youth players and a first teamer for what about say £2,500 or so for the season - what else?

They put on the Legends match but that was a fund raising event for themselves.

An ACV against the ground - which they are now seemingly in negotiations to rescind because it has impacted on Andersons ability to raise money to get the club out of the embargo

And also...



...well nothing else actually comes to mind.


Not fit for purpose imo.

They should stick to being the final backstop for the club which is what they are there to do.

The latest release is a step in the right direction imo.  Althoigh izza has slated KA in the past everyone can change their opinion of someone.  I have of dean holdsworth.

y2johnny wrote:The latest release is a step in the right direction imo.  Althoigh izza has slated KA in the past everyone can change their opinion of someone.  I have of dean holdsworth.

You are of course right Johnny when you say people can and do change their minds about people but take a look at what Izza said in really what was a very tame interview with Wanderers Station above - he TWICE made the remark about "keeping the owners to account".

Izza hasn't changed his spots just yet and whilst he is Chair of the ST I doubt they have either.

Sluffy wrote:You are of course right Johnny when you say people can and do change their minds about people but take a look at what Izza said in really what was a very tame interview with Wanderers Station above - he TWICE made the remark about "keeping the owners to account".

Izza hasn't changed his spots just yet and whilst he is Chair of the ST I doubt they have either.

I don't see an issue with the ST saying that they will hold the owners to account, in fact I believe that is a key part of there role.

The issue comes when they where clearly trying to undermine the owners in an apparent attempt to get ownership of the club for themselves.

The ST need to realise that in order to do their job effectively they need a good relationship with the owners whilst being able to maintain the confidence of it's members that it is acting in a manner to ensure decisions are took in the clubs best interests.

Its not at all uncommon, in all walks of life, for malpractice to go unchecked by regulatory authorities and for irregularities only to be addressed after they have been brought to light by the determined efforts of interested parties. The ST has held itself out as being ready and willing to hold the board to account but if it is quick to criticise and slow to praise or is perceived to be acting with unfair bias it will gain little credibility.

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

You are of course right Johnny when you say people can and do change their minds about people but take a look at what Izza said in really what was a very tame interview with Wanderers Station above - he TWICE made the remark about "keeping the owners to account".

Izza hasn't changed his spots just yet and whilst he is Chair of the ST I doubt they have either.

I don't see an issue with the ST saying that they will hold the owners to account, in fact I believe that is a key part of their role.

Absolutely. Whilst everything KA has done so far has been in line with the behaviour of an altruistic owner attempting to turn the finances around, it is also in line with that of someone looking to make a killing on resale. It would be naive to assume that what you see on the surface is everything and a supporter's trust should have keeping an eye on the owners front and centre of their activities. 
Doesn't mean they are accusing KA of anything in the same way that having a police force doesn't mean that the Government thinks everyone is guilty - it's just a sensible precaution.

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Sluffy wrote:You are of course right Johnny when you say people can and do change their minds about people but take a look at what Izza said in really what was a very tame interview with Wanderers Station above - he TWICE made the remark about "keeping the owners to account".

Izza hasn't changed his spots just yet and whilst he is Chair of the ST I doubt they have either.

I don't see an issue with the ST saying that they will hold the owners to account, in fact I believe that is a key part of there role.

The issue comes when they where clearly trying to undermine the owners in an apparent attempt to get ownership of the club for themselves.

The ST need to realise that in order to do their job effectively they need a good relationship with the owners whilst being able to maintain the confidence of it's members that it is acting in a manner to ensure decisions are took in the clubs best interests.

How can they hold anyone to account though?

They have no powers over the club.

They have no access to the financial dealings of the club.

They aren't even involved with the club - unless the club lets them.

Blackpool has a ST.

If they can't land a glove on Oysten then what even is the point in saying our ST will hold our owners to account?

It even look as though one of our owners has had major difficulties in even bring his fellow owner to account - let alone a toothless ST.

It's just unnecessary, aggressive and ongoing rhetoric from the ST that doesn't help anybody in my opinion.

Empty barrels.

Empty words.

Anyway back to Mr Izza. Is he re-writing history to suit his agenda? I've been a supporter for a lot longer than him and can't honestly say that I recall Garty's predecessors engaging a lot with fans.

But, along with a great many folk I know, I met Garty several times and found him always more than ready to spend time engaging with supporters and talking about the club.

You can't be going round saying Gartside was a nice chap. He's been analysed, cut and diced and finally demonised on here - which is what happens to all previous owners, managers and occasionally players eventually, even though most of us don't know them personally and base it all on snippets in the media.

wanderlust wrote:You can't be going round saying Gartside was a nice chap. He's been analysed, cut and diced and finally demonised on here - which is what happens to all previous owners, managers and occasionally players eventually, even though most of us don't know them personally and base it all on snippets in the media.

And there's me thinking that the average Bolton Nuts member might be a cut above contributors to other BWFC sites.

Hard to read a Sluffy ST post with a straight face but I've invited Izza to a Q&A with fan submitted questions so let's see if he replies