Time for Anderson to deliver

Good resolution for us, and the little that can be read from the statement suggests a mutual agreement has been made with both sides showing willing.

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

Hopefully he’s identified the ringleader and is looking into ways of sacking the bastard

There is no ring leader, this was a squad decision.

T.R.O.Y wrote:There is no ring leader, this was a squad decision.

Ha ha.

T.R.O.Y wrote:There is no ring leader, this was a squad decision.

How’d you know?

I don't, but it's no less believable than there being a ring leader.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I don't, but it's no less believable than there being a ring leader.

It was A.Taylor, he’s a right bastard

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?

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? (A player embargo now whilst we need at least seven players including a goal scorer, and not having access to any player recruitment until the next transfer window in January - assuming we are out of embargo by then - would be certain relegation, the loss of at least £7 million - being the difference in payments to Championship clubs and those in the third tier, and an almost certain crash in gate receipts as we get thrashed at each and every match).

Honestly sense goes out of the window when it comes to the anti-Anderson supporters thinking the worst of KA all the time.

KA deserves a little more respect. If it wasn’t for him in the first place then the chances that the club ceased to exist would be almost a certainty.

That's what he wants us to think

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.

T.R.O.Y wrote:There is no ring leader, this was a squad decision.

There is always a ringleader in any strike.

When the employees of Whittam International plc went on strike because I'd banned the lunch time sex club, it was Dorothy from Accounts who rounded up her colleagues.

Sluffy won't like that

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.

Anderson's plan for Bolton is to bankrupt the club!!!!

You heard it here folks.

And people wonder why I think Wanderlust is a complete and utter nut job!

Well here's the proof.

I think if Anderson wanted to bankrupt the club for some financial gain then why has he not done it yet?

What is he waiting for? 

I don’t think spending a 6 figure sum on a player is going to help!

Sluffy 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.

Anderson's plan for Bolton is to bankrupt the club!!!!

You heard it here folks.

And people wonder why I think Wanderlust is a complete and utter nut job!

Well here's the proof.

No - here is a yet another complete and utter lie from you - and the above is the proof.
In a comment that clearly says there is no evidence either way (twice) as to what Anderson's true intentions are, you've managed to turn it into me saying "anderson's plan is to bankrupt the club."

Like you, I have no idea what Anderson is thinking or what his plan is. Difference is I'm not prepared to call him the Messiah without evidence - evidence you have consistently failed to supply when your outrageous bullshit is challenged.

Drop the bullshit because it just looks like you desperate to prove one point - that your "interpretation" of events is the only correct one, when in the absence of facts there are clearly many possible interpretations.

Your ramblings also underline the fact that you have appalling critical reasoning skills and an inability to understand what others write so you can get off that high horse whilst you're at it.

P.S. I don't even understand why you chose to embolden the two phrases above? Do you disagree with either of them?

Wow, Sluffys trolling finally got to Lusty.

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.