In ken we trust - or not

But do you beleive everything wrote about him by the trust, iles and lov

y2johnny wrote:But do you beleive everything wrote about him by the trust, iles and lov

No. But the facts I've quoted are enough to give me concern.
Hence,my lack of trust.
These aren't allegations,they're facts.

Johnny, you seem to be going all out to paint Ken as the Second Coming - yet Bonce has just posted why we should all be cautious. Just accept it.

boltonbonce wrote:

y2johnny wrote:But do you beleive everything wrote about him by the trust, iles and lov

No. But the facts I've quoted are enough to give me concern.
Hence,my lack of trust.
These aren't allegations,they're facts.

No i know.  Im not arguing with you bonce.  The difference between you and lusty is youve quoted FACTS lusty has just regurgitated speculative articles.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Johnny, you seem to be going all out to paint Ken as the Second Coming - yet Bonce has just posted why we should all be cautious. Just accept it.

And i accept that. Bonce has quoted a fact.  Something others are yet to do.

boltonbonce wrote:

y2johnny wrote:But do you beleive everything wrote about him by the trust, iles and lov

No. But the facts I've quoted are enough to give me concern.
Hence,my lack of trust.
These aren't allegations,they're facts.

I would think that anybody with Anderson's past record would be a 'marked man' so to speak, someone to be extra vigilant about if you are the regulators who oversee compliance of the rules and regs.

I can't believe a) that he believes he can get up to something dodgy whilst being in this spot light and b) that even in the remotest possibility that he might, that the EFL wouldn't be on to him immediately!

It's the quiet ones that are the worst they say, and Anderson with his previous 'rap sheet' of misdemeanours is certainly in the public eye!

The odds are highly stacked that he is doing nothing fiscally illegal at BWFC imo otherwise why has both the people with the greatest debt in the club (Davies and the liquidator in respect of BM) plus the sports governing authority (EFL), all continue to work happily with him?

If Davies, the liquidator and EFL (all who deal with the man and his books on an ongoing basis), continue to monitor and trust him then why can't people who have never met the bloke and apparently believe negative gossip about him on social media, don't?

I rather deal in current reality than conjecture personally or something (bad) that happened a decade ago.

Got to be good for the club, even if he is in it for a profit then he will have to run the club in a manner that will deliver him the most profit when he sells up. It's in his interest to see us do well, the transfers this window where disappointing but the last window we did good business thanks partly to his links within football, so far I see little to say he is not doing the best for the club.

Sluffy wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:

y2johnny wrote:But do you beleive everything wrote about him by the trust, iles and lov

No. But the facts I've quoted are enough to give me concern.
Hence,my lack of trust.
These aren't allegations,they're facts.

I would think that anybody with Anderson's past record would be a 'marked man' so to speak, someone to be extra vigilant about if you are the regulators who oversee compliance of the rules and regs.

I can't believe a) that he believes he can get up to something dodgy whilst being in this spot light and b) that even in the remotest possibility that he might, that the EFL wouldn't be on to him immediately!

It's the quiet ones that are the worst they say, and Anderson with his previous 'rap sheet' of misdemeanours is certainly in the public eye!

The odds are highly stacked that he is doing nothing fiscally illegal at BWFC imo otherwise why has both the people with the greatest debt in the club (Davies and the liquidator in respect of BM) plus the sports governing authority (EFL), all continue to work happily with him?

If Davies, the liquidator and EFL (all who deal with the man and his books on an ongoing basis), continue to monitor and trust him then why can't people who have never met the bloke and apparently believe negative gossip about him on social media, don't?

I rather deal in current reality than conjecture personally or something (bad) that happened a decade ago.

This is an interesting turn of events. I had assumed Johnny and Sluffy knew about his track record as I thought it was brought up at the time he bought into the club and that Iles etc were simply regurgitating old concerns.

There are several reasons why the EFL and the numerous creditors including Eddie and the Warby's have tolerated him and will continue to deal with him including the fact that the last thing they (lifetime supporters) want to happen is for our historic club to go down the pan - which it would if they called in the debts - and that with all creditors Anderson can always play the "eff off or I'll run the club into the ground and you'll get nothing" card.

And seeing as he's taken control of nett assets worth in the region of £43 million (in 2016) for peanuts, and has absolute power over a now impotent Board, he can do pretty much what he wants.

Perhaps the EFL is prepared to trust him enough to lift the embargo? 

The fact is that the club's fate is in the hands of a man who has history of pocketing the company's money and that's not something to be thrilled about, even if you're halfway up his duodenum.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:

y2johnny wrote:But do you beleive everything wrote about him by the trust, iles and lov

No. But the facts I've quoted are enough to give me concern.
Hence,my lack of trust.
These aren't allegations,they're facts.

I would think that anybody with Anderson's past record would be a 'marked man' so to speak, someone to be extra vigilant about if you are the regulators who oversee compliance of the rules and regs.

I can't believe a) that he believes he can get up to something dodgy whilst being in this spot light and b) that even in the remotest possibility that he might, that the EFL wouldn't be on to him immediately!

It's the quiet ones that are the worst they say, and Anderson with his previous 'rap sheet' of misdemeanours is certainly in the public eye!

The odds are highly stacked that he is doing nothing fiscally illegal at BWFC imo otherwise why has both the people with the greatest debt in the club (Davies and the liquidator in respect of BM) plus the sports governing authority (EFL), all continue to work happily with him?

If Davies, the liquidator and EFL (all who deal with the man and his books on an ongoing basis), continue to monitor and trust him then why can't people who have never met the bloke and apparently believe negative gossip about him on social media, don't?

I rather deal in current reality than conjecture personally or something (bad) that happened a decade ago.

This is an interesting turn of events. I had assumed Johnny and Sluffy knew about his track record as I thought it was brought up at the time he bought into the club and that Iles etc were simply regurgitating old concerns.

There are several reasons why the EFL and the numerous creditors including Eddie and the Warby's have tolerated him and will continue to deal with him including the fact that the last thing they (lifetime supporters) want to happen is for our historic club to go down the pan - which it would if they called in the debts - and that with all creditors Anderson can always play the "eff off or I'll run the club into the ground and you'll get nothing" card.

And seeing as he's taken control of nett assets worth in the region of £43 million (in 2016) for peanuts, and has absolute power over a now impotent Board, he can do pretty much what he wants.

Perhaps the EFL is prepared to trust him enough to lift the embargo? 

The fact is that the club's fate is in the hands of a man who has history of pocketing the company's money and that's not something to be thrilled about, even if you're halfway up his duodenum.

What the fuck are you on about - have you been drinking?

Of course I know (presumably Johnny too) about Anderson's history - that is the whole point behind my last post on this thread!!!

As for the embargo we've already brought in one more player than the maximum allowed under their new rules - which seems to suggest the EFL must think he's doing something right!

Good of you to show your homophobic colours though.

Quite frankly I'm not surprised either.

Easy Sluffy saying Lusty is homophobic is a bit of a reach! He just means we are all too blinkered to believe KA would use the club as a cash cow and strip us bare. I can see his point but i'm nowhere near as suspicious as Lusty 

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:

y2johnny wrote:But do you beleive everything wrote about him by the trust, iles and lov

No. But the facts I've quoted are enough to give me concern.
Hence,my lack of trust.
These aren't allegations,they're facts.

I would think that anybody with Anderson's past record would be a 'marked man' so to speak, someone to be extra vigilant about if you are the regulators who oversee compliance of the rules and regs.

I can't believe a) that he believes he can get up to something dodgy whilst being in this spot light and b) that even in the remotest possibility that he might, that the EFL wouldn't be on to him immediately!

It's the quiet ones that are the worst they say, and Anderson with his previous 'rap sheet' of misdemeanours is certainly in the public eye!

The odds are highly stacked that he is doing nothing fiscally illegal at BWFC imo otherwise why has both the people with the greatest debt in the club (Davies and the liquidator in respect of BM) plus the sports governing authority (EFL), all continue to work happily with him?

If Davies, the liquidator and EFL (all who deal with the man and his books on an ongoing basis), continue to monitor and trust him then why can't people who have never met the bloke and apparently believe negative gossip about him on social media, don't?

I rather deal in current reality than conjecture personally or something (bad) that happened a decade ago.

This is an interesting turn of events. I had assumed Johnny and Sluffy knew about his track record as I thought it was brought up at the time he bought into the club and that Iles etc were simply regurgitating old concerns.

There are several reasons why the EFL and the numerous creditors including Eddie and the Warby's have tolerated him and will continue to deal with him including the fact that the last thing they (lifetime supporters) want to happen is for our historic club to go down the pan - which it would if they called in the debts - and that with all creditors Anderson can always play the "eff off or I'll run the club into the ground and you'll get nothing" card.

And seeing as he's taken control of nett assets worth in the region of £43 million (in 2016) for peanuts, and has absolute power over a now impotent Board, he can do pretty much what he wants.

Perhaps the EFL is prepared to trust him enough to lift the embargo? 

The fact is that the club's fate is in the hands of a man who has history of pocketing the company's money and that's not something to be thrilled about, even if you're halfway up his duodenum.

What the fuck are you on about - have you been drinking?

Of course I know (presumably Johnny too) about Anderson's history - that is the whole point behind my last post on this thread!!!

As for the embargo we've already brought in one more player than the maximum allowed under their new rules - which seems to suggest the EFL must think he's doing something right!

Good of you to show your homophobic colours though.

Quite frankly I'm not surprised either.

Ignoring your moronic rant for the moment, your last post isn't consistent with what you've previously written on this topic.

Norpig wrote:Easy Sluffy saying Lusty is homophobic is a bit of a reach! He just means we are all too blinkered to believe KA would use the club as a cash cow and strip us bare. I can see his point but i'm nowhere near as suspicious as Lusty 

He's stated that I was up someone else's arse.

That's an homophobic remark - whether said in jest or not.

These days it is unacceptable and he should fully well know this.

Yet he still went ahead to write and posted it.

Come on Sluffy we all still use that term about work colleagues for example, i wouldn't take it as a homophobic slur to be honest.

Norpig wrote:Come on Sluffy we all still use that term about work colleagues for example, i wouldn't take it as a homophobic slur to be honest.

I'm sure you wouldn't.

But times change and the things I/we said years ago are now no longer acceptable.

We've got to move with the times or risk being branded as racists, homophobics or misogynists.

Maybe you should stop using that phrase too especially if you are around much younger colleagues who are more PC aware and concerned than we were at their age.

Thanks for the lecture Dad 

Norpig wrote:Thanks for the lecture Dad 

It was meant as sound advice to a friend - particularly one working in the public sector.

Feel free to ignore it but I bet you won't.

We both know how PC the public sector has become.

i appreciate the advice but the delivery was a bit condescending to be honest

I expect KA to stabilize the club then sell it on for some number of millions in his own pocket. Probably a nice pick up for two years work. It's just business, not personal.....to quote the Godfather

It's been good for the club and will be better once sold to somebody who actually has a pot to piss in.

Of course interested buyers might be put off with the prospects of relegation.

and we're back on topic, i agree TA

I can't even see the homophobic slur.

Does this make me 100% gay or 100% straight?