.
Last edited by Kane57 on Sat Dec 01 2018, 09:23; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by Kane57 on Sat Dec 01 2018, 09:23; edited 1 time in total
Can't say that I follow other clubs local reporting but there is most definitely friction between Iles and Anderson. But there was also clear friction between Gordon Shorrock and Phil Gartside that I believe coloured the BN reporting over several years and was part of the climate that Iles walked into when first appointed. But that's another story.Sluffy wrote:MartinBWFC wrote:All well and good Sluffy, but why is it just BWFC that continues on this path, clubs such as Bury, Rochdale and the likes don't seem to have these problems on much lower gates, there's problems galore behind the scenes here and it's all beginning to stench the place out.Sluffy wrote:
A number of things there Martin, not least that simply going into Administration doesn't necessarily mean that Anderson will actually lose ownership of the club (if that is what your hope was?).
The main problem that faces most businesses is cash flow and it is more than likely all major debtors (including HMRC) will be catered for even if that means delays in wage payments occasionally.
Bolton only had one home game this month, until Tuesday's game and this more than anything probably had a bearing on why the staff was informed the money might not be there for their wages on time - it wouldn't surprise me if the club (Anderson) had tried to get the DD's for today rather than Monday and got knocked back at the last moment.
We have four home games next month starting tomorrow, so I doubt that the club will be having any issues with creditors or payment of the wages for the rest of this year no matter how many people would wish it on us just so they can bitch about the Anderson's.
For what it is worth I did note one very senior ST Board member liking tweets alluding that Anderson cared fuck all about the club just as long as he was getting plenty money from it for his own personal benefit!
Ever thought that maybe they do - but they don't have people like Iles and the ST making huge issues about it and putting it into the public domain all the time?
At the end of the day, despite what the likes of Iles is making out - it looks like a pay day for the players (only) may be missed by a couple of days. Ok it shouldn't be and it does cause some people a nuisance but its happened to me before more than once - and I was working at the time in the public sector and knew that my wages were guaranteed.
The players wages are also guaranteed no matter what - so at the end of the day it might annoy them a bit but they KNOW they will get paid and any costs they incur during the delay will be covered too - and that's why despite everything that nutjobs at the ST and twitter say, players will still continue signing for the club.
If Iles had not tweeted and published an article based on information he clearly had not seen or heard the clubs side first - would we have known about the possible delay in the payment of wages - after all the staff got paid on time anyway as in turned out.
It's been clear to me for a long while that Iles has got his own personal agenda and that most other clubs journalists from their local papers certainly wouldn't be rushing out to wash their dirty laundry in public like Iles constantly does.
ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson?
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
Re para 2Ten Bobsworth wrote:ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson?
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.
I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.
You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.wanderlust wrote:Re para 2Ten Bobsworth wrote:ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson?
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.
I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.
wanderlust wrote:It’s getting to be like Groundhog Day at BWFC with questions about the running of the club spilling over into uncertainty about cash flow and failure to secure the promised investment and the likes of Sluffy continuing to spout the conspiracy theory that the media, potential investors, creditors, Supporters Trust and everyone on Twitter and Facebook and their dog all have it in for poor honest Ken..
I outlined what I think are the issues with his tenure and apparent intentions months if not years ago and in the absence of information with which to question Anderson’s controlled messaging - and in the face of increasingly hysterical defence of his behaviour I agreed to let it drop until the truth emerges which it eventually will.
I don’t think anything has happened to change that view.
I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.Ten Bobsworth wrote:You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.wanderlust wrote:Re para 2Ten Bobsworth wrote:ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson?
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.
I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.
Ah the old 'big snouts need big troughs' hypothesis. Its true enough when applied to football finance but its not exactly profound, is it?wanderlust wrote:I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.Ten Bobsworth wrote:You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.wanderlust wrote:Re para 2Ten Bobsworth wrote:ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson?
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.
I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.
wanderlust wrote:I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.
observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot. When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through? Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Simple.observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot. When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through? Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
wanderlust wrote:Simple.observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot. When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through? Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.
That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:Simple.observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot. When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through? Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.
Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!
Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
wanderlust wrote:That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:Simple.observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot. When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through? Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.
Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!
Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:Simple.observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot. When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through? Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.
Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!
Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
Eh???
The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.
But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?
Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?
Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?
See post 389Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:Simple.observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot. When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through? Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.
Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!
Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
Eh???
The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.
But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?
Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?
Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?
I have to say, Sluffy, that when the laughably named Sports Shield consortium (two recently formed companies with a combined share capital of £2) took over BWFC I feared the worst. Like everyone else, I had seen photos of individuals with checkered histories showing up in the directors box, seemingly as guests of Dean Holdsworth. Ken Anderson also had history which some were more than keen to publicise.
My enquiries into Holdsworth indicated nothing to suggest that he had any money to spare or any experience that would justify him being appointed CEO of the Burnden Leisure group on a starting salary of £250K.
The first of three Sports Shield companies formed by Dean Holdsworth was Sports Shield Ltd incorporated in January 2015. On 5 April 2016 notice was given of the intention to strike the company off for failure to file accounts. The company then gave notice to extend its first accounting date to 31 March 2016 and filed these accounts on 29 December 2016. i.e. just two days before the extended filing deadline. The company accounts showed that it had £118,686 cash at the bank but where had this money come from?
Holdsworth had been employed by a company called Xpro Management Services Ltd which went into liquidation in October 2015 with scarcely any assets and an estimated deficiency of £87K. What little the liquidator managed to collect all went in fees with nothing for the creditors.
I'm not implying that there was any wrongdoing in any of this but it does not suggest the kind of background or experience needed to run a group of companies with 260 employees and an annual turnover of £30million.
The Xpro set up is interesting in another respect in that its purpose seemed to have been to help retired footballers who had fallen on hard times. One might reasonably have thought that the PFA, with all its riches, was the body that ought to be doing that.
Anyway despite the management services company going belly up, Xpro remains a registered charity. Successful? Not according to Charity Commission records. They show that Xpro Life after Sport has never, in its history, raised as much as £10,000 in any financial year.
I expect the EFL has approved more than a few owners and directors with histories but it has been Ken Anderson's determination and skill that has been largely responsible for the club getting through the last two seasons without going bust. Whether he will succeed in finding the new money the club needs remains to be seen. If he doesn't, I doubt it will be for want of effort on his part.wanderlust wrote:See post 389Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:Simple.observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot. When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through? Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.
Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!
Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.
Eh???
The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.
But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?
Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?
Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?
I have to say, Sluffy, that when the laughably named Sports Shield consortium (two recently formed companies with a combined share capital of £2) took over BWFC I feared the worst. Like everyone else, I had seen photos of individuals with checkered histories showing up in the directors box, seemingly as guests of Dean Holdsworth. Ken Anderson also had history which some were more than keen to publicise.
My enquiries into Holdsworth indicated nothing to suggest that he had any money to spare or any experience that would justify him being appointed CEO of the Burnden Leisure group on a starting salary of £250K.
The first of three Sports Shield companies formed by Dean Holdsworth was Sports Shield Ltd incorporated in January 2015. On 5 April 2016 notice was given of the intention to strike the company off for failure to file accounts. The company then gave notice to extend its first accounting date to 31 March 2016 and filed these accounts on 29 December 2016. i.e. just two days before the extended filing deadline. The company accounts showed that it had £118,686 cash at the bank but where had this money come from?
Holdsworth had been employed by a company called Xpro Management Services Ltd which went into liquidation in October 2015 with scarcely any assets and an estimated deficiency of £87K. What little the liquidator managed to collect all went in fees with nothing for the creditors.
I'm not implying that there was any wrongdoing in any of this but it does not suggest the kind of background or experience needed to run a group of companies with 260 employees and an annual turnover of £30million.
The Xpro set up is interesting in another respect in that its purpose seemed to have been to help retired footballers who had fallen on hard times. One might reasonably have thought that the PFA, with all its riches, was the body that ought to be doing that.
Anyway despite the management services company going belly up, Xpro remains a registered charity. Successful? Not according to Charity Commission records. They show that Xpro Life after Sport has never, in its history, raised as much as £10,000 in any financial year.
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum