Supporters Trust

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

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.

Wanderlust is being sarcastic I think.

Gartside was a Wanderers fan who I think towards the end let his heart rule his head.

We can only assume that Davies gave Gartside free reign most of the time but his inability to see any wrong it Coyle cost us firstly an unnecessary relegation and was then compounded by the utterly ridiculous wages and length of contracts issued in our first season back in the Championship to average (at very best) players.

I think it fair to say no matter what anybody thought about him on here, we were all saddened and upset by his tragic death.

Kane57 wrote: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

I'm not sure if you are giving me a compliment or taking the piss out of me (I assume it is the latter) but I thank you anyway.

You may already have seen on this very thread that Izza did an interview with another BWFC blog site (Wanderers Station) a few days ago, which to be fair was a bit on the tame side - so I hope he does agree to do a Q&A with you at the LoV with some harder hitting questions.

If you want one off me, I would like to know why, in his capacity as the Chairman of the ST, who stated in his interview with WS that a part of the Trust role is "keeping the views of the fans in the mind of the club", that he deliberately blocked our Nuts twitter site - not for something we said on twitter - but for factually reporting his previous tweets made in the public domain about the clubs current owner - on a completely separate social media medium - namely posts made by me HERE on the Nuts forum?

Does he not believe in 'keeping the views of the fans in the mind of the ST' too, or is he simply a hypocrite with double standards, as it seems it is ok for him to express negative opinions about the clubs owner on twitter but not for someone else to repeat them on a fans forum because they are more widely read by the whole spectrum of Wanderers supporters and which undoubtedly reflects badly on him?

As a follow up question ask him why he believes the ST should be honest, open and transparent yet he acts in a way that isn't honest, open and transparent by blocking someone (the Nuts twitter account) not for anything that was ever TWEETED but for repeating his existing tweets made in the public domain on this very FORUM!

Is blocking someone for simply repeating what you have already said an honest, open and transparent way of acting in a responsible manner?



I can't see him responding to that though - can you?




If he does give you an interview we will be happy to post it up on here also for all to read (irrespective if he answers my questions or not!).

As we don't believe in blocking and attempting to silence people simply because we don't always agree with then.

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

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.

Wanderlust is being sarcastic I think.

Gartside was a Wanderers fan who I think towards the end let his heart rule his head.

We can only assume that Davies gave Gartside free reign most of the time but his inability to see any wrong it Coyle cost us firstly an unnecessary relegation and was then compounded by the utterly ridiculous wages and length of contracts issued in our first season back in the Championship to average (at very best) players.

I think it fair to say no matter what anybody thought about him on here, we were all saddened and upset by his tragic death.

I know Wanderlust comments were a bit tongue in cheek but I wasn't commenting on whether Garty was a nice bloke or on his abilities at managing or mismanaging the club's finances. My comments were related to Mr Izza's comments that 'the club was becoming more remote from the fans in the Gartside era', which was the polar opposite of my own experiences.

The 'Gartside era' as it happens was very successful for many years not just in maintaining Premiership status for longer than anyone would have predicted but bringing some unbelievably talented players into the club, several of them retaining a strong affection for BWFC long after they left.

But we can all see perfectly, with the benefit of hindsight, the mistakes that were made, can't we?

Anyway I've got some questions for Mr Izza but I think I might just wait to see what comes out on Monday first.

The problem with Gartside he was all smiles and his face was everywhere when we were doing well, but as soon as things deteriorated then he disappeared from public view, which is when we needed him most to come out and explain exactly what was happening with the club.

I have no doubt he had the clubs best interests at heart but eventually he and Uncle Eddie let us down big time.

Norpig wrote:The problem with Gartside he was all smiles and his face was everywhere when we were doing well, but as soon as things deteriorated then he disappeared from public view, which is when we needed him most to come out and explain exactly what was happening with the club.

I have no doubt he had the clubs best interests at heart but eventually he and Uncle Eddie let us down big time.

The problem with some supporters is they might give you a pat you on the back when things are going well but will pelt you with bricks when they are not.

According to KA, Uncle Eddie spent £185million supporting the club. I reached the same figure from my own calculations and that is out of capital. It doesn't include the unpaid or re-invested interest on his loans.

Fair point Ten Bob but Uncle Eddie didn't have to leave us in the mess we are now did he? He withdrew his money and left us in the lurch.
Yes he did finance the good times but the way he acted at the end brought him down massively in my estimations and probably main other fans.

Norpig wrote:Fair point Ten Bob but Uncle Eddie didn't have to leave us in the mess we are now did he? He withdrew his money and left us in the lurch.
Yes he did finance the good times but the way he acted at the end brought him down massively in my estimations and probably main other fans.

What money did he withdraw? He wrote off £170million of his loans to the club leaving £15.2 million in as a 'soft loan'. £5million of that has since been written off. KA expects the rest to be written off too, doubtless on the basis of discussions he has had with Uncle Eddie.

The other debt that was left was tiny for a club of Bolton's stature. £5.5million from Prescott Business Parks and £2.5million from Brett Warburton and no bank overdraft.

By way of comparison,  the bank debt was £25million when Eddie Davies first invested in BWFC and had increased to £43million when Sam Allardyce left.

The reporting of Uncle Eddie's investment in BWFC has been so consistently poor (the Bolton News and the Guardian in particular) that its little wonder that many supporters are confused about what really happened.

What the club needed most of all last year was someone with the experience and ability to address the trading deficit and restore sustainability. Uncle Eddie entrusted that task to Ken Anderson and so far he hasn't done too badly. The job isn't finished but the ST has been slow and grudging in recognising KA's efforts to date.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Norpig wrote:Fair point Ten Bob but Uncle Eddie didn't have to leave us in the mess we are now did he? He withdrew his money and left us in the lurch.
Yes he did finance the good times but the way he acted at the end brought him down massively in my estimations and probably main other fans.

What money did he withdraw? He wrote off £170million of his loans to the club leaving £15.2 million in as a 'soft loan'. £5million of that has since been written off. KA expects the rest to be written off too, doubtless on the basis of discussions he has had with Uncle Eddie.

The other debt that was left was tiny for a club of Bolton's stature. £5.5million from Prescott Business Parks and £2.5million from Brett Warburton and no bank overdraft.

By way of comparison,  the bank debt was £25million when Eddie Davies first invested in BWFC and had increased to £43million when Sam Allardyce left.

The reporting of Uncle Eddie's investment in BWFC has been so consistently poor (the Bolton News and the Guardian in particular) that its little wonder that many supporters are confused about what really happened.

What the club needed most of all last year was someone with the experience and ability to address the trading deficit and restore sustainability. Uncle Eddie entrusted that task to Ken Anderson and so far he hasn't done too badly. The job isn't finished but the ST has been slow and grudging in recognising KA's efforts to date.

I agree. BTW you have a very familiar writing style.....

Is it Mrs Wanderlust?

Natasha Whittam wrote:Is it Mrs Wanderlust?

No its not, but how long will I be stuck with David Ngog and who do you get next?

25 posts and you'll get rid of Ngog.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:No its not, but how long will I be stuck with David Ngog and who do you get next?

Mario Jardel.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Is it Mrs Wanderlust?

None of my wives and girlfriends can write, so probably not.

wanderlust wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Is it Mrs Wanderlust?

None of my wives and girlfriends can write, so probably not.

Pleased you've scotched any unnecessary speculation. For the record Mrs Bobsworth writes rather well. If I had the same talent there are a couple of books I would like to write.

I notice that Sluffy continues elsewhere in arguing that supporters trusts serve no useful purpose. Whilst sympathetic to some of his concerns over BWFCST, I take a slightly different view albeit accepting the limited powers an ST may have to influence things.

I previously mentioned the alleged role of the Ramstrust in exposing irregularities at Derby County and notice that there was no mention of this in the BBC report that Sluffy highlighted. I use the word 'alleged' because my knowledge of the involvement of the Ramstrust came from the pen of David Conn, the Guardian's columnist, whose writing, actions and conclusions are not infrequently influenced by his political convictions and should always be considered bearing that in mind.

However the RamsTrust Achievements Summary confirms its involvement in campaigning against 'the three amigos'. Curiously its website also confirms the RamsTrust's enthusiastic participation in a Co-operative Society event entitled 'Celebration of Co-operatives' when it had been the Co-op Bank that effectively forced the sale of Derby County to 'the three amigos' for three quid only a few years earlier.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I notice that Sluffy continues elsewhere in arguing that supporters trusts serve no useful purpose. Whilst sympathetic to some of his concerns over BWFCST, I take a slightly different view albeit accepting the limited powers an ST may have to influence things.

I previously mentioned the alleged role of the Ramstrust in exposing irregularities at Derby County and notice that there was no mention of this in the BBC report that Sluffy highlighted. I use the word 'alleged' because my knowledge of the involvement of the Ramstrust came from the pen of David Conn, the Guardian's columnist, whose writing, actions and conclusions are not infrequently influenced by his political convictions and should always be considered bearing that in mind.

However the RamsTrust Achievements Summary confirms its involvement in campaigning against 'the three amigos'. Curiously its website also confirms the RamsTrust's enthusiastic participation in a Co-operative Society event entitled 'Celebration of Co-operatives' when it had been the Co-op Bank that effectively forced the sale of Derby County to 'the three amigos' for three quid only a few years earlier.

Thank you for your discretion in not mentioning the other forum I've been on but as a recent newcomer to Nuts you are probably not aware that we are more open about there being other BWFC forums in existence and don't view them as rivals - because nearly all of us by now know of their existence and the fact that people still post and view Nuts, indicates to us that we must be doing something that people prefer here than elsewhere.

The other site I was on was Wanderersways and I basically only copied one of my posts from this thread and pasted it over there verbatim.

I did a couple of more posts in response to comments I received and anyone interested can follow the discussion from my copy and paste post I made here -

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

I would like to point out though that I've always maintained the reason for being of a ST is to be the final backstop when the club as no money or assets left, so I do acknowledge that in theory at least it does serve a useful purpose - but one that we never need to avail ourselves of we hope.

As for the Derby ST and the three amigos, I simply googled searched about the story and generally speaking I use the BBC site as my reference point for most stuff I seek.

Although it is highly commendable what the Derby ST did and that any form of illegal activity should be brought to book, I would strongly suspect that it was just a drop in the ocean of financial jiggery pokery that probably goes on in football (the George Graham 'cash in the safe' and the Panorama programme on Allardyce spring to mind) and that considering the numbers of ST's in existence and this probably being the only case of some malpractice being proved - then it once again underlines my view that it is NOT the job of ST's to hold clubs to account - they are simply not fit for purpose if that was the case.

The ST has one prime purpose and should stick to that.

Everything else they do should be more window dressing stuff (I don't mean this derogatively), such as supporting the club by sponsoring the youngsters, or raising awareness of community charities, etc - not actively trying to drive the club owner out as they clearly have been attempting to do until perhaps recently.

Having reflected further on the prosecutions of 'the three amigos', I am less convinced that they were brought about by the activities of the RamsTrust and more persuaded that they probably resulted from the Money Laundering Regulations in the Proceeds of Crime Act (which were relatively new at the time).

There was no disclosure in the club's audited accounts of the payment in question (as there should have been) so the fact that directors had availed themselves of a chunk of club money whilst it was in financial distress is unlikely to have been known by the RamsTrust unless they had been tipped off by an insider.

The auditor would, however, have seen this payment and would have been obliged to make enquiries into it, if only to establish whether it was tax deductible or not.  The answers the auditor got would, I expect, have been unlikely to have satisfied any concerns or obligations.

I expect the Derby County case would have attracted more publicity if the club had been a Premiership team at the time but the case is likely to have sent shock waves through all professional football clubs and curtailed some of the irregularities that one of the defendants claimed had been common practice in some football clubs.

The previous regime at BWFC btw seems to have been meticulous in declaring and disclosing any transactions in which a director had an interest.

Burnden Leisure has about 6,000 shareholders who paid good money for their shares but, like other stakeholders (e.g. supporters, season ticket holders and Lifeline members), have no say in how the club is run.

Chris Custodiet. Banned from the BN site for his horse shit, now posting here as TenBob. I'd bin him off Sluffy he's bad news

Kane57 wrote:Chris Custodiet. Banned from the BN site for his horse shit, now posting here as TenBob. I'd bin him off Sluffy he's bad news

Usual unreliable garbage/dishonesty from the LOV mob.
Stick around, Sluffy, you might learn some things you didn't know.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Kane57 wrote:Chris Custodiet. Banned from the BN site for his horse shit, now posting here as TenBob. I'd bin him off Sluffy he's bad news

Usual unreliable garbage from the LOV mob.

Sorry Chris perhaps you weren't banned and just chose to delete your account.