This is worth a read.

All well and good but if an ACV stops a potential investor or buyer from coming in then it's not helped at all has it? We need money now not in 6 months time when all this has been sorted out

It goes on about selling assets before but at the time we had little option other than to sell the offices, training ground and car park did we? We could have gone bust otherwise.

It is a tricky one, on one hand you do want one to ensure the club and it's assets can't be sold off, but on the other hand if it stops someone coming in with real money then whats the point of it?

The argument that the ACV would in any way deter any serious potential investor is at best highly spurious and at worst a downright lie to cover up asset stripping.

If anything the ACV in providing transparency in any proposed sale of assets would encourage investors rather than discourage them.

Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Anderson is currently interested in bringing in any investors (quite the contrary if anything) or that any investors have expressed an interest (other than those that Anderson demonised) or that there are potential investors in the pipeline.

So to ask the question why is Anderson challenging the ACV is valid and the fact that he is going to enormous lengths not to provide a straight answer speaks volumes.

I suspect the real answer is that the club would have a much higher resale value if we can stay in the Championship for a couple of seasons so Toadface's only hope of pulling that one off is to fight off any smaller investors for the time being so he can retain his high shareholding and gambling on keeping the club afloat by pawning even more of the assets until we are established enough at this level to attract a serious buyer. If he is allowed to get away with pawning off the crown jewels and we get relegated the club will be wound up - but Anderson will walk away without any personal debt and without having invested any of his own money. That's the risk that everyone but Toadface's blind followers can see. He is gambling with the club without taking any personal risk.

I totally disagree with you lusty. The fact is that a 6 month wait WILL deter many potential buyers as will the shenanigans of the ST board who seem far more interested in getting their names in the media than the true interests of BWFC or its fans. I'm not going to do a sluffy here, I'll simply point out that the ST has already tried to extort ten percent of the club from Anderson for just 140K and then they had to admit they don't have that money anyway. Since they do not have and there is no prospect of them ever having the money to actually invest in the club they seem to be doing their utmost to ensure no one else will either. Frankly the best thing the ST could do right now is disband and try again. I am a member by the way but as yet, in all the time of the ST's existence I have NOT been asked my opinion, nor to the best of my knowledge has any other member on any action or statement the board of the ST has taken. There is no accountability or transparency within the ST and yet they seem to feel they have a right to demand everyone ELSE must account to them. It's rank hypocrisy and I resent the fact they claim to act in my name or for the good of the club.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I totally disagree with you lusty. The fact is that a 6 month wait WILL deter many potential buyers as will the shenanigans of the ST board who seem far more interested in getting their names in the media than the true interests of BWFC or its fans. I'm not going to do a sluffy here, I'll simply point out that the ST has already tried to extort ten percent of the club from Anderson for just 140K and then they had to admit they don't have that money anyway. Since they do not have and there is no prospect of them ever having the money to actually invest in the club they seem to be doing their utmost to ensure no one else will either. Frankly the best thing the ST could do right now is disband and try again. I am a member by the way but as yet, in all the time of the ST's existence I have NOT been asked my opinion, nor to the best of my knowledge has any other member on any action or statement the board of the ST has taken. There is no accountability or transparency within the ST and yet they seem to feel they have a right to demand everyone ELSE must account to them. It's rank hypocrisy and I resent the fact they claim to act in my name or for the good of the club.

As I have tried to explain to Sluffy in the past, having an ACV in place would not delay the sale of Anderson's shares to a new owner by one millisecond.

It is a complete nonsense of an argument. The only circumstances that it would be relevant would be if the asset was to be sold off or used as collateral  which is clearly what Toadface wants to do instead of investing his own money in the business. A new rich owner wouldn't/shouldn't ever need to do that and anyway it has nothing to do with buying Toadface's shares.

Yes the ST are a dubious lot, but given Anderson's history of asset stripping and his subsequent ban from holding a Directorship for that very reason we should be grateful to the ST for putting this security measure in place. It may be the only thing they've got right so far.

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I totally disagree with you lusty. The fact is that a 6 month wait WILL deter many potential buyers as will the shenanigans of the ST board who seem far more interested in getting their names in the media than the true interests of BWFC or its fans. I'm not going to do a sluffy here, I'll simply point out that the ST has already tried to extort ten percent of the club from Anderson for just 140K and then they had to admit they don't have that money anyway. Since they do not have and there is no prospect of them ever having the money to actually invest in the club they seem to be doing their utmost to ensure no one else will either. Frankly the best thing the ST could do right now is disband and try again. I am a member by the way but as yet, in all the time of the ST's existence I have NOT been asked my opinion, nor to the best of my knowledge has any other member on any action or statement the board of the ST has taken. There is no accountability or transparency within the ST and yet they seem to feel they have a right to demand everyone ELSE must account to them. It's rank hypocrisy and I resent the fact they claim to act in my name or for the good of the club.

As I have tried to explain to Sluffy in the past, having an ACV in place would not delay the sale of Anderson's shares to a new owner by one millisecond.

It is a complete nonsense of an argument. The only circumstances that it would be relevant would be if the asset was to be sold off or used as collateral  which is clearly what Toadface wants to do instead of investing his own money in the business. A new rich owner wouldn't/shouldn't ever need to do that and anyway it has nothing to do with buying Toadface's shares.

Yes the ST are a dubious lot, but given Anderson's history of asset stripping and his subsequent ban from holding a Directorship for that very reason we should be grateful to the ST for putting this security measure in place. It may be the only thing they've got right so far.

Of course an ACV will effect Andersons sale of his shares.

Who in their right minds would give him full market price for them when the businesses main assets are all under constraints by the ACV?

Think of it that you have a house you want to sell.

If you put it on the market, you sell for the market price - agreed?

If however you have a sitting tenant with long term tenure rights, no one in their right minds would offer you anything like market price - because once they bought the house with sitting tenant, they have simply taken on that burden from you and will have the same problem in finding a buyer when they want to sell on.

As for Anderson,

If the ST wants to stop the ground being sold then buy it!
 
If they haven't got the ability to buy it then why fight the proposed removal of the ACV?
 
At the end of the day if Anderson has no money and no buyer for the club he HAS to sell assets - it's as simple as that.
 
If the ACV prevents that before the money Anderson HAS been putting into the club runs out (Do the ST really believe that Season Ticket and gate receipt revenue has fully covered all running costs since the end of last season - including the summer 'off-season' - without Anderson funding the shortfall???)  then there is only one outcome - Administration - an automatic points deduction - and the Administrator selling the assets at a knock down price because they are encumbered by having an unwanted (by any potential purchaser) and restrictive ACV attached to it!
 
Do you really think that is best for the club because I don't.

It's not rocket science really is it?

I was of the understanding, from statements made by SD in the initial formation of the ST, that they could not comment and would only be there to assist the ST in setting the trust up. Looks like the waters are getting murkier. I'm also surprised that the SD didn't mention the delayed elections, thus making the ST a non-entity.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I totally disagree with you lusty. The fact is that a 6 month wait WILL deter many potential buyers as will the shenanigans of the ST board who seem far more interested in getting their names in the media than the true interests of BWFC or its fans. I'm not going to do a sluffy here, I'll simply point out that the ST has already tried to extort ten percent of the club from Anderson for just 140K and then they had to admit they don't have that money anyway. Since they do not have and there is no prospect of them ever having the money to actually invest in the club they seem to be doing their utmost to ensure no one else will either. Frankly the best thing the ST could do right now is disband and try again. I am a member by the way but as yet, in all the time of the ST's existence I have NOT been asked my opinion, nor to the best of my knowledge has any other member on any action or statement the board of the ST has taken. There is no accountability or transparency within the ST and yet they seem to feel they have a right to demand everyone ELSE must account to them. It's rank hypocrisy and I resent the fact they claim to act in my name or for the good of the club.

As I have tried to explain to Sluffy in the past, having an ACV in place would not delay the sale of Anderson's shares to a new owner by one millisecond.

It is a complete nonsense of an argument. The only circumstances that it would be relevant would be if the asset was to be sold off or used as collateral  which is clearly what Toadface wants to do instead of investing his own money in the business. A new rich owner wouldn't/shouldn't ever need to do that and anyway it has nothing to do with buying Toadface's shares.

Yes the ST are a dubious lot, but given Anderson's history of asset stripping and his subsequent ban from holding a Directorship for that very reason we should be grateful to the ST for putting this security measure in place. It may be the only thing they've got right so far.

Of course an ACV will effect Andersons sale of his shares.

Who in their right minds would give him full market price for them when the businesses main assets are all under constraints by the ACV?

I didn't say it would affect the price - I said it wouldn't cause a delay in the sale.
The shares are worth whatever they are worth and that is a reflection of the overall business including assets and goodwill etc and the debts and creditors that Anderson is already running up.

But whilst we're on about share value, ironically you defeat your own argument when you write:

Sluffy wrote:
If however you have a sitting tenant with long term tenure rights, no one in their right minds would offer you anything like market price - because once they bought the house with sitting tenant, they have simply taken on that burden from you and will have the same problem in finding a buyer when they want to sell on.

Because if Anderson was to pawn or sell the assets by your own argument he would be reducing the sale value of his shares whereas if the assets remain untouched they would be adding value to the Balance Sheet bottom line. By having the ACV in place - and therefore a reduced likelihood that the assets have been pawned or sold Anderson's share value would be higher, not lower - according to your own "logic".

Clearly Anderson does not have - or intend to invest - sufficient money to revitalise the business, so rather than continue to run up the club's debt (the club's not his!) and if he genuinely cared about not endangering the club any further, his only honourable course of action would be to dispense with his majority shareholding in order to bring in new money from new investors. 

When Anderson finally goes, BWFC is going to have a massive bill to pay for what he is doing unless he opens his mind to new investors who can put an end to operating on 24% interest or whatever we are now paying to secure Anderson's tenuous position.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I totally disagree with you lusty. The fact is that a 6 month wait WILL deter many potential buyers as will the shenanigans of the ST board who seem far more interested in getting their names in the media than the true interests of BWFC or its fans. I'm not going to do a sluffy here, I'll simply point out that the ST has already tried to extort ten percent of the club from Anderson for just 140K and then they had to admit they don't have that money anyway. Since they do not have and there is no prospect of them ever having the money to actually invest in the club they seem to be doing their utmost to ensure no one else will either. Frankly the best thing the ST could do right now is disband and try again. I am a member by the way but as yet, in all the time of the ST's existence I have NOT been asked my opinion, nor to the best of my knowledge has any other member on any action or statement the board of the ST has taken. There is no accountability or transparency within the ST and yet they seem to feel they have a right to demand everyone ELSE must account to them. It's rank hypocrisy and I resent the fact they claim to act in my name or for the good of the club.

As I have tried to explain to Sluffy in the past, having an ACV in place would not delay the sale of Anderson's shares to a new owner by one millisecond.

It is a complete nonsense of an argument. The only circumstances that it would be relevant would be if the asset was to be sold off or used as collateral  which is clearly what Toadface wants to do instead of investing his own money in the business. A new rich owner wouldn't/shouldn't ever need to do that and anyway it has nothing to do with buying Toadface's shares.

Yes the ST are a dubious lot, but given Anderson's history of asset stripping and his subsequent ban from holding a Directorship for that very reason we should be grateful to the ST for putting this security measure in place. It may be the only thing they've got right so far.

Of course an ACV will effect Andersons sale of his shares.

Who in their right minds would give him full market price for them when the businesses main assets are all under constraints by the ACV?

I didn't say it would affect the price - I said it wouldn't cause a delay in the sale.
The shares are worth whatever they are worth and that is a reflection of the overall business including assets and goodwill etc and the debts and creditors that Anderson is already running up.

But whilst we're on about share value, ironically you defeat your own argument when you write:

Sluffy wrote:
If however you have a sitting tenant with long term tenure rights, no one in their right minds would offer you anything like market price - because once they bought the house with sitting tenant, they have simply taken on that burden from you and will have the same problem in finding a buyer when they want to sell on.

Because if Anderson was to pawn or sell the assets by your own argument he would be reducing the sale value of his shares whereas if the assets remain untouched they would be adding value to the Balance Sheet bottom line. By having the ACV in place - and therefore a reduced likelihood that the assets have been pawned or sold Anderson's share value would be higher, not lower - according to your own "logic".

Clearly Anderson does not have - or intend to invest - sufficient money to revitalise the business, so rather than continue to run up the club's debt (the club's not his!) and if he genuinely cared about not endangering the club any further, his only honourable course of action would be to dispense with his majority shareholding in order to bring in new money from new investors. 

When Anderson finally goes, BWFC is going to have a massive bill to pay for what he is doing unless he opens his mind to new investors who can put an end to operating on 24% interest or whatever we are now paying to secure Anderson's tenuous position.

You don't half talk utter bollocks.

I'll again post up the two most pertinent lines of my previous post both of which you either didn't read or they didn't fit in with the BS you constantly spout -

Sluffy wrote:
At the end of the day if Anderson has no money and no buyer for the club he HAS to sell assets - it's as simple as that.

It's not rocket science really is it?

I had to laugh tonight when yet again I saw that you've been ranting on again this morning about Anderson 'deliberately keeping potential investors away, blah, blah, blah...' and hours later a glossy club for sale prospectus is published!



So much for keeping potential investors away them.

Not forgetting how you kept telling us that Anderson would never get the embargo lifted!



Hahaha!