Bolton Wanderers Supporters' Trust will not back down over Macron ACV order to 'safeguard the club’s

SUPPORTERS’ Trust leaders say they do not want to go ‘daggers drawn’ against Bolton Wanderers — but will not back down in a dispute over legal protection for the Macron Stadium.
Whites owner Ken Anderson last week urged the trust to ‘save the club a great deal of cash and time’ by not fighting attempts to have the stadium and surrounding land declassified as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).
While the ACV is in place, the stadium itself, the Whites Hotel, offices and car parking land around the ground cannot be sold without public notification.

A private council hearing to decide whether or not the ACV will be lifted is scheduled for October 2.
Bolton Wanderers Supporters’ Trust chairman, Daniel Izza, said: “We are certainly not looking to stop the club from buying assets.
“The ACV is there as protection for the club, it is nothing personal against the current owners. The ACV is now common among football clubs, so we aren’t suggesting anything unusual.
“It means that should the supporters have the opportunity to buy an asset in a commercial scenario, they have the first option. It does not prevent a sale, but it ensures that there is transparency in any transaction. We are not looking to go daggers drawn against the club and the ACV is not something that the club should be afraid of, because it is part of the community as well.”
Mr Anderson claimed that the ACV is ‘fundamentally restrictive to the progress we are trying to make at the club’, saying it could hamper his refinancing plans.

However the supporters’ trust says the ACV listing is there to protect the club’s long-term future.
Ian Bridge, trust founder and former chairman, added: “If the owner wanted to sell an asset and could put forward that it was of benefit to the club’s long-term sustainability then we would not stand in the way. We are disappointed that this has become a contentious issue when all we are trying to do is safeguard the club’s future.

“It is not a personal vendetta against the current owners, it would be there no matter who owned the club. To ask the trust to back off without giving any substance as to why goes against the purpose of the ACV.”

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

They've always a problem this lot, just wanting to make things difficult for Ken. Anyone would think they are salty about their ridiculous takeover attempt.

Question - why is Ian Bridge talking on behalf of the ST when he is no longer an elected Board member?
 
Doesn't this just underlines the fact that the ST is simply led by a very small group of likeminded people who don't consult their membership (or have ever been voted in) and take the decisions they want?
 
(And who all happen to be anti-Anderson!) 

The ST still think they can raise the money to buy the club? They really are clueless and as a member i don't want them to buy the club anyway

Norpig wrote:The ST still think they can raise the money to buy the club? They really are clueless and as a member i don't want them to buy the club anyway

I'd ask for your fee back NP.

Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?

wanderlust wrote:Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?

No it doesn't.

The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six months to raise money to but the asset.

Even then the club owner can sell to who he wants - even if it is for less money.

So all along I've argued that if the ST can't raise millions to buy the assets then what really is the point of them getting an ACV other than as a means of simply irritating the owner, delaying him by 6 months and devaluing the value of the asset whilst people have to wait to go through the whole process every time they want to buy or sell it.

Think Hotel rather than the ground and you will soon see why it is so absurd and damaging to the clubs future.

Sluffy wrote:The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six moths to raise money to but the asset.

If they switch their outside light on after dark tonight they should be able to get the six moths they need.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six moths to raise money to but the asset.

If they switch their outside light on after dark tonight they should be able to get the six moths they need.

(I'll change it!).

As usual, people putting their dislike of Izza etc over what's best for the club.

Kane57 wrote:As usual, people putting their dislike of Izza etc over what's best for the club.

What is best for the club?

I would think it's survival is the number one priority - agreed?

IF we reach a position that the club needs cash flow, there is nobody willing or able to buy/invest in the club then surely we only have two options - 1) mortgage/sell assets - 2) Enter Administration (and receive a points deduction) so that the Administrator can sell assets.  Agreed?

Then what is best for the club 1) mortgage/sale of assets by the club owner or 2) sale of assets and points deduction from the Administrator?

Maybe your question should be phrased the other way around - namely -

"As usual, people putting their dislike of Anderson etc over what's best for the club".

Just a thought.



(Also where on the thread are there anti-Izza comments?).

I don't even know Izza but the ST are just being awkward, they will never be able to raise the money to buy the club and as i said before i don't want them running it anyway. 
When Portsmouth came to speak at the initial ST meeting all their people said the limit for an ST running a club would be league 1 and wouldn't be sustainable in the Championship.

If someone has the money to invest and buy the club and passes all the tests set by the EFL then they are not going to wait 6 months for the ACV to not be an issue are they?

Sluffy wrote:

Kane57 wrote:As usual, people putting their dislike of Izza etc over what's best for the club.

What is best for the club?

I would think it's survival is the number one priority - agreed?

IF we reach a position that the club needs cash flow, there is nobody willing or able to buy/invest in the club then surely we only have two options - 1) mortgage/sell assets - 2) Enter Administration (and receive a points deduction) so that the Administrator can sell assets.  Agreed?

Then what is best for the club 1) mortgage/sale of assets by the club owner or 2) sale of assets and points deduction from the Administrator?

Maybe your question should be phrased the other way around - namely -

"As usual, people putting their dislike of Anderson etc over what's best for the club".

Just a thought.



(Also where on the thread are there anti-Izza comments?).

You're well aware of what I meant - if I may say so, I get the same vibe from you.

Survival is always number one, but protecting assets is a close close second. It's an impossible position. Whichever way it goes is a volatile choice

It's a willy waving exercise. The ST think they have a bigger willy so take on the owners, doesn't matter who the owners are, the ST will continue their antics because they have the arrogance to assume that all fans want them to act as they are. They'd be better off nipping down to Missus Jones knitting club and handing out the tea and biscuits.
I might change my mind if Ken fecks up but then I would hope the long established BWFSA would lead any charge. And I'm with Sluffy. Why is yon Bridge bloke yapping? He's been removed from office and has no right for any comment beyond his own personal opinion.
If the ACV stays in place, it just ties the club's hands for a while, could delay or even stop investment so is more damaging in its existence than if it was just a tin-pot set up...oh hang on.

Dick waving is absolutely right. Both sides equally guilty.

Supporters trust acting on behalf of its member base......i think not

I give up with the ST and will definitely not be contributing to them again

Kane57 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Kane57 wrote:As usual, people putting their dislike of Izza etc over what's best for the club.

What is best for the club?

I would think it's survival is the number one priority - agreed?

IF we reach a position that the club needs cash flow, there is nobody willing or able to buy/invest in the club then surely we only have two options - 1) mortgage/sell assets - 2) Enter Administration (and receive a points deduction) so that the Administrator can sell assets.  Agreed?

Then what is best for the club 1) mortgage/sale of assets by the club owner or 2) sale of assets and points deduction from the Administrator?

Maybe your question should be phrased the other way around - namely -

"As usual, people putting their dislike of Anderson etc over what's best for the club".

Just a thought.



(Also where on the thread are there anti-Izza comments?).

You're well aware of what I meant - if I may say so, I get the same vibe from you.

Survival is always number one, but protecting assets is a close close second. It's an impossible position. Whichever way it goes is a volatile choice

I'm not aware of what you mean unless you are saying I/others whom may have posted above - are anti-ST?

As for the vibe you get from me, that's down to you.

I've been accused by many (including according to you the ST Board themselves) of allsorts but the simple truth is that their ONLY function is to be the backstop if all goes wrong for the club and it is left without money or assets.

Everything else is a personal choice that the ST Board individuals have taken upon themselves to do without any legal powers, nor indeed with any elections (and thus no mandate) from their own members.

Everything they have done is based on the personal decisions of about what, seven or eight people at the most I would guess - and in all probability fewer than that.

I'm certainly not alone in questioning their actions (and motives!), indeed it would seem I'm in the vast majority of people.

It's not I that have taken the numerous actions the ST have (including personal negative tweets about the owner and blocking of people - and a bizarre vlog from the Chair of the ST hinting strongly of untoward going on within the club) that have made them become widely unpopular - so much so that even paid up ST members openly criticise them and their (unelected) decisions.  

They've made that bed themselves!



As for survival - if you've no money and no one will give you any, then you have to sell-off the family silver or die.

What other choice is there?

Think we all have the same opinion of Mr Izza

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?

No it doesn't.

The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six months to raise money to but the asset.

Even then the club owner can sell to who he wants - even if it is for less money.

So all along I've argued that if the ST can't raise millions to buy the assets then what really is the point of them getting an ACV other than as a means of simply irritating the owner, delaying him by 6 months and devaluing the value of the asset whilst people have to wait to go through the whole process every time they want to buy or sell it.

Think Hotel rather than the ground and you will soon see why it is so absurd and damaging to the clubs future.

So if Anderson can still pawn the assets to refinance the club (momentarily giving him the benefit of the doubt despite his track record) what is he complaining about?  

He's saying that the ACV affects refinancing - which according to you is simply untrue.

The only impact the ACV would have is if he wanted to sell off club assets (as opposed to use them as collateral against loans) so maybe his problem is that he can't asset strip and pocketing the money whilst the ACV is in place - which IMO is a very legitimate concern given that he's been barred from Directorship in the past for doing just that.

As for the ST having the money to buy if it came up for sale the truth of the matter is that they won't need that money until required and they would have six months to put together a consortium or raise the money from the community.

I find it really difficult to believe Anderson is complaining about the ACV for legitimate reasons.

If he genuinely wanted to refinance the club for legitimate reasons, surely the simplest thing to do would be sell off some of his shares for actual dosh as that would bring new money into the club to reduce the club's exposure and interest payments - much more in the club's interest than more loans and more debt.

If he genuinely cares about the club's interests he should put his shares where his mouth is rather than put the club deeper into hock.