Time for Anderson to deliver

wanderlust wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Wow, Sluffys trolling finally got to Lusty.

Yeah. I'm really shitting myself.

Seriously, it does get on my tits when this idiot keeps making things up and then writing page after irrelevant page to try to make it sound true - all of which appears to be designed for self-aggrandisement.

wanderlust wrote:With Parky asking for seven new players and suggesting that they need to be signed this week to get them embedded, the pressure is building for Anderson to deliver on several fronts.

Whilst I tend to take every Anderson press release as nothing more than spin, I am open to - indeed hoping for - proof that he's genuine, so on that note I had a look back at some of the stuff he's been saying.

For the last year he's been talking about the need for investment. The first lot he spoke to were dismissed as being "not up to scratch" (by his criteria) so they were kicked into touch and didn't invest. Then there was interest from people he did think were up to scratch, but Anderson said it was in the club's interest to wait until the end of the season before he would talk to them. Then the end of the season came and allegedly discussions have been held. Then it went quiet again. 

Meanwhile on the player front, contracts weren't honoured and the squad was further decimated - at the same time the Press releases promised to bring in players of a better quality. The handful of signings to date could hardly be described as "better quality" with the possible exception of Oztumer who has yet to play at Championship level but may turn out to be good.

Now with the clock ticking down to the end of the transfer window Anderson needs to start delivering both in terms of investment and signings. Personally I'm skeptical as I think he's full of shit, but as a lifelong BWFC fan I'm praying I'm wrong and he comes up with the goods. And he's got less than 3 weeks to do it.

So what do you reckon? Will he turn out to be the Messiah after all or will we be faced with another string of excuses blaming the world/the investors/the players/the media/the dog etc when the season kicks off?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Growler wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:One things for sure, Anderson will think twice before trying to pull a stunt like this again the damage could have been far worse.

Or for an owner who didn't want to spend any money, not paying the wages and bonuses  would be a good way to get a transfer embargo?

Why would the sole owner of a multi-million pound turnover business want to inflict devastating, detrimental actions to his own business whilst he is in the process of trying to sell it? 

Because there's a lot of money to be made in bankrupting a business if you can get away with it - or even if you can't - as the unpaid "suppliers", company assets and investors carry the cost. And shareholding is not the same as investing -  I am a 40% shareholder in 3 companies and I've never put a penny of my own money into any of them, but I do get the dividends.

The last time Anderson did it was for the purposes of syphoning off company money into his own personal accounts leading to the business being bled to death whilst he maintained a PR campaign saying everything was in hand to act as a smokescreen.

Last time he was caught out doing it (2005) when his company finally went tits up, Anderson was done for embezzlement of company funds, VAT irregularities and failing to cooperate with the receivers - all conducted behind a smokescreen of media spin.

Although he came out of it with a ban (9 years?) he made a personal fortune so I don't think the fate of the company, shareholders, the employees or the suppliers was of much concern to him as he sat in his fancy house in Switzerland telling himself what a naughty boy he had been.

No evidence either way to prove he's currently doing that to BWFC however putting in low bids that that don't have a chance of winning and then telling the fans "we tried - it was their fault" or suggesting that we'll get investment and then being unreasonable in the negotiations so they don't invest (and then telling the fans the potential investors were unreasonable/not fit etc) would be a good strategy for Anderson if he is up to his old tricks again. Aggressively putting the blame at the door of others is a central aspect of his MO. We'll find out more in the next few weeks and there's a a different thread for that. 

My concern is that whilst Anderson may control the shares, he has been very careful to keep his own money out of BWFC with the exception of bridging loans which he has already paid back to himself or has contractually prioritised for first repayment so his exposure is minimal and if we do go bankrupt, the club's remaining assets and those investors/creditors who have got money in the club will be stuck with the bill.

So why wouldn't he do it if his personal risk is zero and he has positioned himself to gain the control to syphon off money as he pleases? Because he is a lifelong BWFC fan who loves the club?

Key point here is that there's no real evidence either way to shed light on his true motives but he does have form which in my mind is sufficient reasonable doubt to maintain a healthy skepticism until the truth comes out.

Nigelbwfc wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Growler wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:One things for sure, Anderson will think twice before trying to pull a stunt like this again the damage could have been far worse.

Or for an owner who didn't want to spend any money, not paying the wages and bonuses  would be a good way to get a transfer embargo?

Why would the sole owner of a multi-million pound turnover business want to inflict devastating, detrimental actions to his own business whilst he is in the process of trying to sell it? 

Because there's a lot of money to be made in bankrupting a business if you can get away with it - or even if you can't - as the unpaid "suppliers", company assets and investors carry the cost. And shareholding is not the same as investing -  I am a 40% shareholder in 3 companies and I've never put a penny of my own money into any of them, but I do get the dividends.

The last time Anderson did it was for the purposes of syphoning off company money into his own personal accounts leading to the business being bled to death whilst he maintained a PR campaign saying everything was in hand to act as a smokescreen.

Last time he was caught out doing it (2005) when his company finally went tits up, Anderson was done for embezzlement of company funds, VAT irregularities and failing to cooperate with the receivers - all conducted behind a smokescreen of media spin.

Although he came out of it with a ban (9 years?) he made a personal fortune so I don't think the fate of the company, shareholders, the employees or the suppliers was of much concern to him as he sat in his fancy house in Switzerland telling himself what a naughty boy he had been.

No evidence either way to prove he's currently doing that to BWFC however putting in low bids that that don't have a chance of winning and then telling the fans "we tried - it was their fault" or suggesting that we'll get investment and then being unreasonable in the negotiations so they don't invest (and then telling the fans the potential investors were unreasonable/not fit etc) would be a good strategy for Anderson if he is up to his old tricks again. Aggressively putting the blame at the door of others is a central aspect of his MO. We'll find out more in the next few weeks and there's a a different thread for that. 

My concern is that whilst Anderson may control the shares, he has been very careful to keep his own money out of BWFC with the exception of bridging loans which he has already paid back to himself or has contractually prioritised for first repayment so his exposure is minimal and if we do go bankrupt, the club's remaining assets and those investors/creditors who have got money in the club will be stuck with the bill.

So why wouldn't he do it if his personal risk is zero and he has positioned himself to gain the control to syphon off money as he pleases? Because he is a lifelong BWFC fan who loves the club?

Key point here is that there's no real evidence either way to shed light on his true motives but he does have form which in my mind is sufficient reasonable doubt to maintain a healthy skepticism until the truth comes out.

He could just as well be telling the truth.

He bids what the club CA afford. Unfortunately that isn't a lot. At our end of transfers it's extremely difficult.

What you ascribe to Ken Anderson, could just as well be said about yhe late Phil Gartside. In fact this scenario always comes up when money is tight at the club. The Warburtons in the 70s we're always described as up to no good. Wanting the club to be bankrupt etc.

Why did both Ken Anderson and the Warburtons bother to rescue the club, since they were practically bankrupt when they took over? Is it because they wanted the real estate?  Don't forget loans were already taken out before Ken took over. Eddie Davies ensured that the no one who took the club on would make a profit on its bankruptcy by leaving a £15 million  loan as well as numerous other payments to him. Maybe you think Eddie and Ken are in it together?

If you look back far enough you'd find that in 2005 Eddie Davies was looking for investors / to sell the club. Unfortunately no one wants to buy into the club, they didn't then and they don't want to now. 

There's no land around the Macron to sell. So we're really not worth investing in. Sorry if that comes as a shock. In terms of land Wigan have the most to sell ( they have 5 car parks) that's good land to be developed. If I was an investor I'd look at Wigan. 

I've heard all these disaster theories before. It's the same spin. One day someone might be right but it's 1 in 100,000 chance and some anti Anderson's are getting their knickers in a twist.

wanderlust wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Growler wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:One things for sure, Anderson will think twice before trying to pull a stunt like this again the damage could have been far worse.

Or for an owner who didn't want to spend any money, not paying the wages and bonuses  would be a good way to get a transfer embargo?

Why would the sole owner of a multi-million pound turnover business want to inflict devastating, detrimental actions to his own business whilst he is in the process of trying to sell it? 

Because there's a lot of money to be made in bankrupting a business if you can get away with it - or even if you can't - as the unpaid "suppliers", company assets and investors carry the cost. And shareholding is not the same as investing -  I am a 40% shareholder in 3 companies and I've never put a penny of my own money into any of them, but I do get the dividends.

The last time Anderson did it was for the purposes of syphoning off company money into his own personal accounts leading to the business being bled to death whilst he maintained a PR campaign saying everything was in hand to act as a smokescreen.

Last time he was caught out doing it (2005) when his company finally went tits up, Anderson was done for embezzlement of company funds, VAT irregularities and failing to cooperate with the receivers - all conducted behind a smokescreen of media spin.

Although he came out of it with a ban (9 years?) he made a personal fortune so I don't think the fate of the company, shareholders, the employees or the suppliers was of much concern to him as he sat in his fancy house in Switzerland telling himself what a naughty boy he had been.

No evidence either way to prove he's currently doing that to BWFC however putting in low bids that that don't have a chance of winning and then telling the fans "we tried - it was their fault" or suggesting that we'll get investment and then being unreasonable in the negotiations so they don't invest (and then telling the fans the potential investors were unreasonable/not fit etc) would be a good strategy for Anderson if he is up to his old tricks again. Aggressively putting the blame at the door of others is a central aspect of his MO. We'll find out more in the next few weeks and there's a a different thread for that. 

My concern is that whilst Anderson may control the shares, he has been very careful to keep his own money out of BWFC with the exception of bridging loans which he has already paid back to himself or has contractually prioritised for first repayment so his exposure is minimal and if we do go bankrupt, the club's remaining assets and those investors/creditors who have got money in the club will be stuck with the bill.

So why wouldn't he do it if his personal risk is zero and he has positioned himself to gain the control to syphon off money as he pleases? Because he is a lifelong BWFC fan who loves the club?

Key point here is that there's no real evidence either way to shed light on his true motives but he does have form which in my mind is sufficient reasonable doubt to maintain a healthy skepticism until the truth comes out.

He could just as well be telling the truth.

He bids what the club CA afford. Unfortunately that isn't a lot. At our end of transfers it's extremely difficult.

What you ascribe to Ken Anderson, could just as well be said about yhe late Phil Gartside. In fact this scenario always comes up when money is tight at the club. The Warburtons in the 70s we're always described as up to no good. Wanting the club to be bankrupt etc.

Why did both Ken Anderson and the Warburtons bother to rescue the club, since they were practically bankrupt when they took over? Is it because they wanted the real estate?  Don't forget loans were already taken out before Ken took over. Eddie Davies ensured that the no one who took the club on would make a profit on its bankruptcy by leaving a £15 million  loan as well as numerous other payments to him. Maybe you think Eddie and Ken are in it together?

If you look back far enough you'd find that in 2005 Eddie Davies was looking for investors / to sell the club. Unfortunately no one wants to buy into the club, they didn't then and they don't want to now. 

There's no land around the Macron to sell. So we're really not worth investing in. Sorry if that comes as a shock. In terms of land Wigan have the most to sell ( they have 5 car parks) that's good land to be developed. If I was an investor I'd look at Wigan. 

I've heard all these disaster theories before. It's the same spin. One day someone might be right but it's 1 in 100,000 chance and some anti Anderson's are getting their knickers in a twist.

Just to be clear, I cited Anderson's previous misdemeanours as an example of his character. Whether or not he is screwing the club - as he has other businesses - or not, nobody knows at this point so it is only speculation - could be true, might not be.

Obviously every one of us hopes that it's not true, but lying about investors as he has done isn't exactly making him any more believable and only serves to fuel suspicions about what his game really is, however I must reiterate that I don't know, you don't know and Sluffy certainly doesn't know.

And I'm certainly not getting my knickers in a twist when I point out the fact that I don't trust Anderson - although lots of other people, especially those who swallow his spin certainly seem to get aerated about it.

wanderlust wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Growler wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:One things for sure, Anderson will think twice before trying to pull a stunt like this again the damage could have been far worse.

Or for an owner who didn't want to spend any money, not paying the wages and bonuses  would be a good way to get a transfer embargo?

Why would the sole owner of a multi-million pound turnover business want to inflict devastating, detrimental actions to his own business whilst he is in the process of trying to sell it? 

Because there's a lot of money to be made in bankrupting a business if you can get away with it - or even if you can't - as the unpaid "suppliers", company assets and investors carry the cost. And shareholding is not the same as investing -  I am a 40% shareholder in 3 companies and I've never put a penny of my own money into any of them, but I do get the dividends.

The last time Anderson did it was for the purposes of syphoning off company money into his own personal accounts leading to the business being bled to death whilst he maintained a PR campaign saying everything was in hand to act as a smokescreen.

Last time he was caught out doing it (2005) when his company finally went tits up, Anderson was done for embezzlement of company funds, VAT irregularities and failing to cooperate with the receivers - all conducted behind a smokescreen of media spin.

Although he came out of it with a ban (9 years?) he made a personal fortune so I don't think the fate of the company, shareholders, the employees or the suppliers was of much concern to him as he sat in his fancy house in Switzerland telling himself what a naughty boy he had been.

No evidence either way to prove he's currently doing that to BWFC however putting in low bids that that don't have a chance of winning and then telling the fans "we tried - it was their fault" or suggesting that we'll get investment and then being unreasonable in the negotiations so they don't invest (and then telling the fans the potential investors were unreasonable/not fit etc) would be a good strategy for Anderson if he is up to his old tricks again. Aggressively putting the blame at the door of others is a central aspect of his MO. We'll find out more in the next few weeks and there's a a different thread for that. 

My concern is that whilst Anderson may control the shares, he has been very careful to keep his own money out of BWFC with the exception of bridging loans which he has already paid back to himself or has contractually prioritised for first repayment so his exposure is minimal and if we do go bankrupt, the club's remaining assets and those investors/creditors who have got money in the club will be stuck with the bill.

So why wouldn't he do it if his personal risk is zero and he has positioned himself to gain the control to syphon off money as he pleases? Because he is a lifelong BWFC fan who loves the club?

Key point here is that there's no real evidence either way to shed light on his true motives but he does have form which in my mind is sufficient reasonable doubt to maintain a healthy skepticism until the truth comes out.

He could just as well be telling the truth.

He bids what the club CA afford. Unfortunately that isn't a lot. At our end of transfers it's extremely difficult.

What you ascribe to Ken Anderson, could just as well be said about yhe late Phil Gartside. In fact this scenario always comes up when money is tight at the club. The Warburtons in the 70s we're always described as up to no good. Wanting the club to be bankrupt etc.

Why did both Ken Anderson and the Warburtons bother to rescue the club, since they were practically bankrupt when they took over? Is it because they wanted the real estate?  Don't forget loans were already taken out before Ken took over. Eddie Davies ensured that the no one who took the club on would make a profit on its bankruptcy by leaving a £15 million  loan as well as numerous other payments to him. Maybe you think Eddie and Ken are in it together?

If you look back far enough you'd find that in 2005 Eddie Davies was looking for investors / to sell the club. Unfortunately no one wants to buy into the club, they didn't then and they don't want to now. 

There's no land around the Macron to sell. So we're really not worth investing in. Sorry if that comes as a shock. In terms of land Wigan have the most to sell ( they have 5 car parks) that's good land to be developed. If I was an investor I'd look at Wigan. 

I've heard all these disaster theories before. It's the same spin. One day someone might be right but it's 1 in 100,000 chance and some anti Anderson's are getting their knickers in a twist.

Just to be clear, I cited Anderson's previous misdemeanours as an example of his character. Whether or not he is screwing the club - as he has other businesses - or not, nobody knows at this point so it is only speculation - could be true, might not be.

Obviously every one of us hopes that it's not true, but lying about investors as he has done isn't exactly making him any more believable and only serves to fuel suspicions about what his game really is, however I must reiterate that I don't know, you don't know and Sluffy certainly doesn't know.

And I'm certainly not getting my knickers in a twist when I point out the fact that I don't trust Anderson - although lots of other people, especially those who swallow his spin certainly seem to get aerated about it.

observer wrote:In the long-run, it is better for everyone if KA would pay up and get a few decent players, and have us move up the table to the top six... and then sell-on to someone or a conglomerate with cash to spend.  Everyone wins in that scenario (hint-hint KA - splash a few quid around and get us to the top six! - but be wise about it at the same time)!

Leeds_Trotter wrote:

observer wrote:In the long-run, it is better for everyone if KA would pay up and get a few decent players, and have us move up the table to the top six... and then sell-on to someone or a conglomerate with cash to spend.  Everyone wins in that scenario (hint-hint KA - splash a few quid around and get us to the top six! - but be wise about it at the same time)!

If only it was that easy.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:The truth is that the days when a bargain could be found easily are long gone. The days when a manager could genuinely wheel and deal in the market the way we did in the nineties and noughties are over. The advent of MLS, China, Qatar and other foreign leagues willing to pay mega bucks for an aging pro who might raise a club's profile coupled with insane 200million pound plus fees in Europe have put an end to smaller clubs being able to compete at all much less effectively. When you see articles where a sixteen year old who's never had a pro contract is being valued at 20 or 30 million you know that the world's gone crazy in footballing terms at least.

Right now I think our best bet when it comes to a striker is probably going to be in the loan market, maybe someone from the Prem has a kid they want to get experience or someone like Villa or QPR need to get someone off the wage bill for a season to straighten up their FFP problems.

observer wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:The truth is that the days when a bargain could be found easily are long gone. The days when a manager could genuinely wheel and deal in the market the way we did in the nineties and noughties are over. The advent of MLS, China, Qatar and other foreign leagues willing to pay mega bucks for an aging pro who might raise a club's profile coupled with insane 200million pound plus fees in Europe have put an end to smaller clubs being able to compete at all much less effectively. When you see articles where a sixteen year old who's never had a pro contract is being valued at 20 or 30 million you know that the world's gone crazy in footballing terms at least.

Right now I think our best bet when it comes to a striker is probably going to be in the loan market, maybe someone from the Prem has a kid they want to get experience or someone like Villa or QPR need to get someone off the wage bill for a season to straighten up their FFP problems.

No argument on these points!

wanderlust wrote:

observer wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:The truth is that the days when a bargain could be found easily are long gone. The days when a manager could genuinely wheel and deal in the market the way we did in the nineties and noughties are over. The advent of MLS, China, Qatar and other foreign leagues willing to pay mega bucks for an aging pro who might raise a club's profile coupled with insane 200million pound plus fees in Europe have put an end to smaller clubs being able to compete at all much less effectively. When you see articles where a sixteen year old who's never had a pro contract is being valued at 20 or 30 million you know that the world's gone crazy in footballing terms at least.

Right now I think our best bet when it comes to a striker is probably going to be in the loan market, maybe someone from the Prem has a kid they want to get experience or someone like Villa or QPR need to get someone off the wage bill for a season to straighten up their FFP problems.

No argument on these points!

Me neither, however under Anderson we are losing money hand over fist and his only "solution" is to pawn club assets, cut the wage bill and sell off our best players.
That is clearly unsustainable as sooner or later we will run out of assets to pawn and players to sell, so whichever way you dress it up, and whatever you choose to believe about the man, Anderson is failing.

There are ways out of this mess though. Attract new investors before the assets completely run out - he's not doing that. Invest in the squad to increase the chances of success on the pitch (which brings in the money from several sources) - he's not doing that either.

As far as I can tell, he's running the club into the ground.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:All I will reiterate is that to attract investment or new owners will be impossible unless we have balanced books 

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:All I will reiterate is that to attract investment or new owners will be impossible unless we have balanced books 

The point I'm tring to make is slightly different Peter. Balanced books means that there is sufficient value in the business to offset present and future commitments. If the business is carrying debt as BWFC is, it doesn't matter to an investor as long as the business has the means/assets to cover off the debts and the potential to make money going forward - all investors are interested in is ROI. Quickest way to balance the books is to go bankrupt - have nothing and owe nothing - but then there's nothing left for investors to invest in and that appears to be the way we're heading until Anderson finds a way to put value back into the business.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:just a short one lusty. Assume Ken HAS leveraged club assets to secure capital. It's not a problem assuming those loans are being properly serviced (ie repayments made on time) since the assets would only be at risk if they weren't. I suspect Ken may well have done this in order to pay off or reduce pre-existing debts that we CAN'T service from current revenue. I suspect any potential investor who knows his stuff would be able to see that in the books. Anyway, we clearly don't agree on Ken's motives for his actions but I think even you should be able to accept that our debts were out of control and we were heading for at least admin if not outright liquidation before he came in. At least now the costs are provably down and if we're a bit threadbare then so be it, we at least have a solid foundation on which to begin building.