Time for Anderson to deliver

Dunkels King wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:OK that's a good start at least.

Basically I think we should all wait to see what the actual facts in this matter are. It's obvious that both sides in this dispute are going to try and spin it so they appear to be the injured party but 'trial by media' isn't something I'd put any faith in, especially not when the media is the BN and Marc Iles.

Once the actual facts are known then it should be pretty obvious who's done what and who's to blame. I'll make my own judgement on this issue then, not before.

There are always two sides to a story. The thing I don't understand is that if Heathcotes had already taken the Club to Court (was it last year or earlier) why did they then continue to provide the service ? You would think that they would be off like a shot in the first place unless they need the Club just as much as the Club need a Catering service.


Having just read Ken Andersons statement, surely the best solution would be to simply deduct what SCC/Heathcotes owe the Club from what the Club owes them, pay them, terminate the contract with notice and get someone else lined up therefore probably saving any potential Court costs. It's interesting that he mentions TUPE which implies that all the Staff can be taken on by a new Caterer and keep the same Terms and Conditions which includes pay rates. Clearly the Club have already decided to get rid of Heathcotes. Some people on here won't like this but it seems Ken does know what he is doing. It might not be nice how he does it, but it's within the law and is infact how a lot of businesses work now.

Indeed, the following is taken from a BBC article on Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon (which is now vying to become the world's first trillion dollar company, having transformed from niche second-hand book seller to global jack-of-all trades).

"But Amazon also hasn't hesitated to save where it could, making headquarters employees pay for parking, battling with suppliers, opposing efforts to organise labour unions at its warehouses, and avoiding taxes as much as possible".

Mr Bezos is now the world's richest person.

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

So the world's most successful businessman 'battles' with suppliers, (whilst ours is battling Heathcote's), 'avoids taxes as much as possible (ours has been taken to court by HMRC for delaying paying the clubs until the last possible moment), has 'opposed labour unions' (ours took on the players over their unofficial strike and had them officially state their actions to the club) - yet Bezos the best businessman in the world, the man who created the empire which is Amazon, is seen as a business genius by many, yet Anderson walking a very similar business path is seen by some as some sort of Devil incarnate!

Growler wrote:We've got to be realistic here, it will be Ken that owes Heathcotes money, not the other way round.The urgency for Ken to get this sorted is that he has the rugby league semi finals next weekend and if it's cash only at the hotel because he hasn't paid  money he owes the caterer,it would be very embarrassing for him.

To think it's all Heathcotes fault and everything will be hunky dory when ruthless Ken gets rid of them and replaces them with a new caterer is also far fetched.If Ken doesn't pay the next caterer money he owes them in a reasonable timeframe he's going to have more problems.

Have you actually read Anderson's latest statement on the matter because it certainly doesn't read that way to me.

It sounds as though the club loaned him money to help set up the business and/or revamp it and it is Heathcote (SCC Ltd) that has defaulted on their latest payment back to the club.

Reading between the lines Anderson wants the money paid in full and is withholding monies until it does.

Interestingly Heathcote resigned as a Director of SCC (Special Catering Company) Ltd on Wednesday (25th July 2018) and there is a charge against the company's assets by their bank which was issued just over a year ago (3rd July, 2017) which makes me wonder if his business is in some sort of financial trouble and (contrary to what the anti-Anderson's dearly want us to believe) is having difficulty paying its debts and Anderson is merely taking preventative action just in case?

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

To be honest I hadn't read the evening statement, there was a statement yesterday afternoon from BWFC saying no further comments, and then Ken appeared last night with a lot more comments.

Are BWFC really in a position to be giving out loans?

Or perhaps it was the previous owner looking to make money loaning money before the parachute payments ran out.

Tough to say with so little facts - that goes for both the Anti and Pro-Anderson’s - who would happily argue black’s white if Ken released a statement claiming it.

As we know, his record in the area of paying staff is patchy at best but that doesn’t mean suppliers won’t look to exploit that.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Tough to say with so little facts - that goes for both the Anti and Pro-Anderson’s - who would happily argue black’s white if Ken released a statement claiming it.

As we know, his record in the area of paying staff is patchy at best but that doesn’t mean suppliers won’t look to exploit that.

I'm not sure there is such thing as "pro" Anderson. It's just many of us are struggling to find what he's done wrong.

There are definitely anti Anderson's, but the same people won't give anyone a chance, no matter what they do.

There were anti Gartsides, anti Warburtons and anti boards.

Unless we're top of the premiership, people aren't happy. 

Yet we're in this position through a catalogue of bad business decisions and Anderson seems to me to be doing his best. 

We'd all like us to be spending multimillions on players, but at the moment we know it's not going to happen.

As for the catering, we will have to wait for the outcome of the legal case. 

I like the fact we have a chairman who won't be pushed around. All our previous ones have been too gentleman like. Other clubs don't bother with that luxury. 

Glad we're running the club as a business at last.

In fairness nigel you’ve no idea what Ed or Gartside were like in their handling of the business claiming they were too gentleman like is a baseless claim.

You may not feel overtly Pro-Anderson, which is fine I’ve no idea about your views. But I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who is unwilling to criticise KA’s handling of the pay dispute for example. On here that’s Sluffy, but Twitter is also full of like minded folk. 

There’s no need to be pro or anti-Anderson IMO, there are plenty of positives KA is responsible for. But we shouldn’t pretend everything he touches is gold, or take every line he puts into the press as gospel.

T.R.O.Y wrote:In fairness nigel you’ve no idea what Ed or Gartside were like in their handling of the business claiming they were too gentleman like is a baseless claim.

You may not feel overtly Pro-Anderson, which is fine I’ve no idea about your views. But I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who is unwilling to criticise KA’s handling of the pay dispute for example. On here that’s Sluffy, but Twitter is also full of like minded folk. 

There’s no need to be pro or anti-Anderson IMO, there are plenty of positives KA is responsible for. But we shouldn’t pretend everything he touches is gold, or take every line he puts into the press as gospel.

I'm uncertain of the facts on the pay dispute between Ken and the players, so I can't comment because I don't know what was in the players contracts. 

I would criticise him for his communication in that matter, I would agree with that, but, have taken note of the players apology as well.

I think with the over generous wages paid and some of the transfer dealings, I think you can make that criticism of ED and Phil. I feel over the years some of our dealings have been poor. Who else is to blame for the financial mess that we're in? You can't blame the manager for wanting players. I do think some of the players we bought were over priced and I think we have given in too easily during Ed and Phil's tenure. 

Sure we all enjoyed the good times, but many of us worried about the increased debt. 

Of course we didn't sit in on the negotiations, but you can criticise the outcomes now we have the overall picture.

Sounds to me Ken's a tough negotiator, some might argue he's a bully. But right now I'm glad he's in charge.

Haven’t seen an apology from the players yet. But as I said at the time you don’t piss off the only asset you have capable of affecting success. So delaying payment was a dumb move.

You now seem to be conflating two issues, clearly there was financial mismanagement from ED and PG - but I was questioning the notion that both were pushed around too easily of which there’s no supporting evidence.

There’s also no relation to being a ‘tough negotiator’ and not paying suppliers or staff.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Haven’t seen an apology from the players yet. But as I said at the time you don’t piss off the only asset you have capable of affecting success. So delaying payment was a dumb move.

You now seem to be conflating two issues, clearly there was financial mismanagement from ED and PG - but I was questioning the notion that both were pushed around too easily of which there’s no supporting evidence.

There’s also no relation to being a ‘tough negotiator’ and not paying suppliers or staff.

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

There’s no disagreeing with the last point, contractual law makes that pretty clear.

There hasn't been a public apology from the players. Ken claimed they were sorry .We got nothing to confirm that from the players, let alone a whip round for the fans travel expenses,  which spoke volumes to me.

T.R.O.Y wrote:There’s no disagreeing with the last point, contractual law makes that pretty clear.

In the interest of balance, you cannot just quote one side of the story without quoting the opposite claim, as none of us know what the claimed breaches of contract by either side are. Surely contractual law applies to both sides?

There’s no other side to it, I’m making a general point about the law itself. And failure to pay staff or suppliers is not being a ‘tough negotiator’, it’s just being an arsehole.

Whether that’s the case at the club none of us know.

T.R.O.Y wrote:There’s no other side to it, I’m making a general point about the law itself. And failure to pay staff or suppliers is not being a ‘tough negotiator’, it’s just being an arsehole.

Whether that’s the case at the club none of us know.

Sorry, but I have to disagree, as you only call Ken Anderson “an arsehole”. If Paul Heathcote is failing to pay monies owed to BWFC, does that not also make him an arsehole then?

Sorry thought I was being clear - it’s a gerneral point about what constitutes being a tough negotiator. Like you I’ve no idea about what’s going on behind the scenes so not calling anyone in this situation an arsehole.

The extent to which good business ethics and good business practice are aligned is a matter of debate - from a good business practice perspective.
Whilst on the one hand, paying suppliers at the latest legally possible moment is good accounting practice (unless the business is in the process of nurturing certain suppliers for other business reasons)  paying them late (i.e. illegally) being excessively litigious and using the media to justify concerns raised can tarnish business relationships and deter potential suppliers, partners and investors which can ultimately harm the business. 

Whilst we don't know the facts yet, it does seem as if Anderson stumbles from one contentious issue to another - although he always writes press releases blaming the other party. 

What are the chances of just about everyone that Anderson deals with - business partners, players, suppliers, potential investors, sections of the media etc - ALL turning out to be assholes trying to screw him as he claims? 

Is Anderson really the unluckiest businessman on the planet?

wanderlust wrote:What are the chances of just about everyone that Anderson deals with - business partners, players, suppliers, potential investors, sections of the media etc - ALL turning out to be assholes trying to screw him as he claims? 

Is Anderson really the unluckiest businessman on the planet?

Everyone that Anderson deals with?

Aren't we forgetting the people who monitor, regulate issue and take back the licence to even play football professionally, the EFL, the independent business that virtually holds the immediate future of the club in its hands - but who 'knocked off £1 million of the sum supposedly owed to it by the club and binned the ridiculous interest rate that Holdsworth had set on it - BluMarble, the appointed liquidator of Holdsworth's now defunked SSBWFC Ltd, who dealt with Anderson and found him the best person to sell Holdsworth shares to, HMRC who have negotiated and agreed a bond with KA to ensure no further problems of outstanding taxes from the club, the judges at the various court hearings who have always been happy to go along with KA's preferred outcomes, Bolton Council who ruled in favour to lift the ridiculous ACV obtained by the ST on the hotel, car park and other bits and bobs, Brett Warburton and Prescot Business Park for deferring repayments on their 'soft loans, and Eddie Davies for writing off £198 million?

In fact EVERY single person with any authority, say, influence, financing or future direction of the club - I repeat, every single one of them - have backed Mr Kenneth Anderson on the running of the club - and those that are still relevant to its future still obviously do - or we would have soon heard otherwise!

Funny how all these influential movers and shakers and fundamental to the club even remaining in business have somehow escaped your mind when painting your picture of Anderson.

Not that you have an agenda against Anderson or anything though is it?

Out of interest, when you said you were takjng a step back to deal with your interests outside the forum, do you have a date in mind?

Sluffy wrote:
In fact EVERY single person with any authority, say, influence, financing or future direction of the club - I repeat, every single one of them - have backed Mr Kenneth Anderson on the running of the club - and those that are still relevant to its future still obviously do - or we would have soon heard otherwise!

You talk about "financing and future direction of the club" and yet every single investor that has expressed an interest in putting money into the club since he arrived has walked. 

And regardless of the spin Anderson has put on that unfortunate situation, it remains a fact.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
In fact EVERY single person with any authority, say, influence, financing or future direction of the club - I repeat, every single one of them - have backed Mr Kenneth Anderson on the running of the club - and those that are still relevant to its future still obviously do - or we would have soon heard otherwise!

You talk about "financing and future direction of the club" and yet every single investor that has expressed an interest in putting money into the club since he arrived has walked. 

And regardless of the spin Anderson has put on that unfortunate situation, it remains a fact.

How do you mean, they've asked. Unless you have some inside information, I'm not sure they've walked but been found out. Anderson said one of them was a fraud. There was another con man who is now behind bars, but promised to give Holdsworth money ( from what I heard). 

As I've said before there are a lot of big time Charlie's, but doubt many with substance have come forward.