Ken Anderson - update.

Sluffy wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:

Sluffy wrote:  We made a slight profit last season thanks to the Madine sale apparently and once we get through this season we lose our last big (and stupid) wage of Amos (£16k per week - £832k pa plus employer costs!).

Eddie Davies handed out this "stupid" wage to Ben Amos didn't he? And a matter of weeks later the club were in the High Court facing a wind up order because Eddie couldn't find the money to pay the tax bill

And yet despite describing the contract he handed to Ben Amos as stupid, you refuse to criticise Eddie Davies in any of your daily tirades at Marc Iles, the supporters trust and Dean Holdsworth.

I find it odd that you won't mention Davies in your criticism yet clearly didn't rate his decision to pay Amos 16k a week

FFS. That's going to provoke a 5 paragraph-er at least

Kane57 wrote:FFS. That's going to provoke a 5 paragraph-er at least

Kane57 wrote:You two are the only ones who care. Rest of us are just here for the football.

A question mate - not just for you but for everyone.

If it's just about the football would you watch Bolton no matter what, or when would you say enough is enough?

Would you watch Parkinson and Megson type football week in week out if that simply kept us up every season?

If we went bust and had to start again in the non league with players considerably less skilful than the ones we had now, would you go and follow us - even after a season or two when the novelty had worn off?

If we played like Barcelona (but say still in the Championship) would you be happy to pay stupid money - say £60 per game to see it?

If you could see every game for free on a stream rather than go to the ground - would you still pay to watch them?

For me you see it was never about the football - ever.  My enjoyment was going with my mates and having a laugh together both before during and after the match - and I mean days before (planning the route, arranging the travel, people letting you down at the last minute and so on) at the game - laughing that we were such a bad team and what donkeys we had, or shouting from the roof tops after another glorious win - to days after analysing where we went wrong both on the pitch and our feeble attempts at getting to the ground and back home again!

Talking about Anderson, Holdsworth, the ST, Iles, the anti-Anderson's, nutjobs like Wanderlust etc, simply amuses me - just like everything that happened outside watching the actual game, amused me back then.

It's all pointless really, nothing I say or do is going to change anything.  I don't fret or stress or get worked up about things.  I laugh at those who take things that seriously that they live to tweet their anger about somebody they've never met - or ever will - simply because they own the club and don't run it the way they should do in their small minded and often clearly ill informed opinion.

I laugh at a reporter clearly likeable but totally out of his depth on financial matters and obviously keeping the wrong company for his bestest mates - he's being played and he simply doesn't see it.

The football is probably the last thing on my mind these days.  Oh I want us to win and the kick in the guts is still there when that last minute goal went in - even at my age and after all those years - but it's still just a game.

I've been watching Ambulance on catch up on BBC iplayer (link below if anyone is interested) and it's about a young woman 24 years old, killed by a hit and run in Manchester, and how a bloke from the ambulance crew rationalises how he feels about things after seeing her die.

That's real life, that's what real pain and tragedy is about for the young woman's family.

Footballs nothing compared to that, it's just a distraction, nothing to get worked up about or go mental over.

The players are lucky they get paid so much for kicking a ball about, Iles is lucky he gets paid to watch and write about it.  Anderson is lucky (good or bad luck depending on if he makes a killing or not) by owning the club.  Holdsworth seems to be lucky that he appears to be quid's in for simply signing the club up to a bad deal.  I'm lucky I've got nutjobs like Wanderlust to laugh at - and finally I guess everyone else is lucky that they can laugh at me.

Anyway, that link -

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


EDIT - Scum driver gets just 7 years for killing woman crossing the road at the lights, driving off without stopping, going through further red lights, going on the run for three days then saying nothing to the police.

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

Growler wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:

Sluffy wrote:  We made a slight profit last season thanks to the Madine sale apparently and once we get through this season we lose our last big (and stupid) wage of Amos (£16k per week - £832k pa plus employer costs!).

Eddie Davies handed out this "stupid" wage to Ben Amos didn't he? And a matter of weeks later the club were in the High Court facing a wind up order because Eddie couldn't find the money to pay the tax bill

And yet despite describing the contract he handed to Ben Amos as stupid, you refuse to criticise Eddie Davies in any of your daily tirades at Marc Iles, the supporters trust and Dean Holdsworth.

I find it odd that you won't mention Davies in your criticism yet clearly didn't rate his decision to pay Amos 16k a week

Simple enough answer.

It was Gartside not Davies who ran the club and handed out the contract to Amos.

Who knows why Davies let him do what he did - but that's the reality of things.

I think (I may be wrong?) but didn't Gartside die of brain cancer? If so maybe that had a major bearing on his decision making at the time?

Sluffy wrote:
Simple enough answer.

It was Gartside not Davies who ran the club and handed out the contract to Amos.

Who knows why Davies let him do what he did - but that's the reality of things.

I don't believe that Gartside was 100% responsible for the poor decision making

As one example, Gartside said that he wanted to bring Sam Allardyce back as manager but Eddie Davies wouldn't have him back.I don't think Gartside was lying, I think Davies had the final say in stuff like that

There were more poor financial decisions made under Eddie Davies' ownership.Another one was turning down £5 million from Swansea City for  "sicknote" Mark Davies after we had been relegated to the Championship.Sure enough a few weeks later he got crocked again and we were lumbered with a 30k a week contract in the sick bay.Mark Davies getting injured wasn't bad luck, it was inevitable.He was a sick note before we signed him and a sicknote for us before we turned down the lottery win offered by Swansea
The financial mismanagement under Eddie Davies is why we were screwed at the time Anderson came in, but it seems taboo to talk about it.

Growler wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Simple enough answer.

It was Gartside not Davies who ran the club and handed out the contract to Amos.

Who knows why Davies let him do what he did - but that's the reality of things.

I don't believe that Gartside was 100% responsible for the poor decision making

As one example, Gartside said that he wanted to bring Sam Allardyce back as manager but Eddie Davies wouldn't have him back.I don't think Gartside was lying, I think Davies had the final say in stuff like that

There were more poor financial decisions made under Eddie Davies' ownership.Another one was turning down £5 million from Swansea City for  "sicknote" Mark Davies after we had been relegated to the Championship.Sure enough a few weeks later he got crocked again and we were lumbered with a 30k a week contract in the sick bay.Mark Davies getting injured wasn't bad luck, it was inevitable.He was a sick note before we signed him and a sicknote for us before we turned down the lottery win offered by Swansea
The financial mismanagement under Eddie Davies is why we were screwed at the time Anderson came in, but it seems taboo to talk about it.

Taboo talking about it by who?

I've certainly not stopped anyone talking about it?

In fact I've always and often stated that we were a financial basket case club that Anderson has been attempting to turn around, so I'm certainly not one who has been shy to mention it many times before.

Davies was I believe a tax exile as such and could only spend a set number of days in the year in this country otherwise he would lose his favourable tax benefit of living on the Isle of Man, so clearly was not in day to day charge of the club.  Gartside was.

I'm more inclined to believe Gartside (an accountant himself remember) took the decisions and Davies rubber stamped them.

Either way it doesn't matter much now as they are both dead and buried and the club is weighed down from the burden of debt from under their stewardship of the club.

I don't think anyone believes otherwise, so I haven't got the foggiest why you seem to think it is some sort of a taboo subject on here?

Maybe if that muppet Iles had got his finger out and actually questioned what indeed was Davies wealth and why little old Bolton was running a debt that only United, Real Madrid and Valencia (who nearly went bust like we did) in the entire world could match - like I was openly wondering at the time - then maybe at least things wouldn't have played out a little differently perhaps?

Water under the bridge now, we are where we are and we've got to deal with it.

Full scale editorial attacks and stirring up the twitter know nothings isn't helping much in my opinion, even though it might help Iles sell a few papers more.

Iles is as much a born and bred Wanderers fan as Anderson is - many people tend to forget that.  He's as loyal to Bolton as his next pay cheque.  If he was offered a job too good to turn down at say the Gillingham Evening News tomorrow, he would soon be Gillingham's number one twitter fan no doubt and forget the Wanderers soon enough no doubt.

Is that any difference (apart from the scale) that Anderson is doing - they have both come to Bolton to earn their money, do well, then move off when the time is right for them for perhaps another club?

Anderson is just the custodian of the club in just the same way as Iles is just the custodian of the post of club reporter - the rest of us will still be here after they are both gone.

Surely at times like this we should all be pulling together, not actively and deliberately trying to tear things apart?

Iles and the ST's recent attacks on Anderson will come to nothing - Administration won't be happening soon if that is what they were hoping for.

However their shit stirring may have a longer term corrosive effect on the club and that helps no one who wants the best for us at this difficult time.

Nice to see from Iles recent tweets from yesterday evening that he's took it upon himself to see if the PFA involvement in payment of the wages might trigger another embargo for the club.

Whose side is he on ffs?

Almost if he wants to see us go under with Anderson in charge - just as the ST have been wanting all along!

I should have said 15 paragraphs

Sluffy wrote:

Growler wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Simple enough answer.

It was Gartside not Davies who ran the club and handed out the contract to Amos.

Who knows why Davies let him do what he did - but that's the reality of things.

I don't believe that Gartside was 100% responsible for the poor decision making

As one example, Gartside said that he wanted to bring Sam Allardyce back as manager but Eddie Davies wouldn't have him back.I don't think Gartside was lying, I think Davies had the final say in stuff like that

There were more poor financial decisions made under Eddie Davies' ownership.Another one was turning down £5 million from Swansea City for  "sicknote" Mark Davies after we had been relegated to the Championship.Sure enough a few weeks later he got crocked again and we were lumbered with a 30k a week contract in the sick bay.Mark Davies getting injured wasn't bad luck, it was inevitable.He was a sick note before we signed him and a sicknote for us before we turned down the lottery win offered by Swansea
The financial mismanagement under Eddie Davies is why we were screwed at the time Anderson came in, but it seems taboo to talk about it.

Taboo talking about it by who?

I've certainly not stopped anyone talking about it?

In fact I've always and often stated that we were a financial basket case club that Anderson has been attempting to turn around, so I'm certainly not one who has been shy to mention it many times before.

Davies was I believe a tax exile as such and could only spend a set number of days in the year in this country otherwise he would lose his favourable tax benefit of living on the Isle of Man, so clearly was not in day to day charge of the club.  Gartside was.

I'm more inclined to believe Gartside (an accountant himself remember) took the decisions and Davies rubber stamped them.

Either way it doesn't matter much now as they are both dead and buried and the club is weighed down from the burden of debt from under their stewardship of the club.

I don't think anyone believes otherwise, so I haven't got the foggiest why you seem to think it is some sort of a taboo subject on here?

Maybe if that muppet Iles had got his finger out and actually questioned what indeed was Davies wealth and why little old Bolton was running a debt that only United, Real Madrid and Valencia (who nearly went bust like we did) in the entire world could match - like I was openly wondering at the time - then maybe at least things wouldn't have played out a little differently perhaps?

Water under the bridge now, we are where we are and we've got to deal with it.

Full scale editorial attacks and stirring up the twitter know nothings isn't helping much in my opinion, even though it might help Iles sell a few papers more.

Iles is as much a born and bred Wanderers fan as Anderson is - many people tend to forget that.  He's as loyal to Bolton as his next pay cheque.  If he was offered a job too good to turn down at say the Gillingham Evening News tomorrow, he would soon be Gillingham's number one twitter fan no doubt and forget the Wanderers soon enough no doubt.

Is that any difference (apart from the scale) that Anderson is doing - they have both come to Bolton to earn their money, do well, then move off when the time is right for them for perhaps another club?

Anderson is just the custodian of the club in just the same way as Iles is just the custodian of the post of club reporter - the rest of us will still be here after they are both gone.

Surely at times like this we should all be pulling together, not actively and deliberately trying to tear things apart?

Iles and the ST's recent attacks on Anderson will come to nothing - Administration won't be happening soon if that is what they were hoping for.

However their shit stirring may have a longer term corrosive effect on the club and that helps no one who wants the best for us at this difficult time.

Nice to see from Iles recent tweets from yesterday evening that he's took it upon himself to see if the PFA involvement in payment of the wages might trigger another embargo for the club.

Whose side is he on ffs?

Almost if he wants to see us go under with Anderson in charge - just as the ST have been wanting all along!

To be fair to ED, of the £180 million debt, he wrote of £165 million of it and only kept £15 million in to "dissuade chancers" we were told at the time. 

He could though have surely written the other £15 million debt off. 

Who now runs Moonshift Investments? 

What's happened on the estate of Eddie Davies? Usually we have a message saying X left so much in their will?

If moonshift was EDs own investment company, wouldn't it be needed to be wound up? All debts paid etc?

Just trying to understand the situation.

Nigel,
I imagine that ED's estate will be a complicated affair and may take quite a few months to settle. Moonshift will still exist as an investment company as ED will have indicated in his will who he has left his shares  in the company to. So the position of the £15m soft debt still remains an issue. I imagine again that EDs kids have picked up the shares and as they have little interest in BWFC ( and there's no reason why they should) they might leave things alone for a short while whilst the dust settles - then press for repayment Or ED may have specified in his will that the loan runs for a given length of time before repayment is due.
 Its all speculation like so much more on this thread.
The short term loan to KA though a few weeks before EDs death is more interesting- but again none of us has a clue about the terms and conditions of that loan.
Better off just watching the 'football' and seeing us get tommed by Leeds next Saturday

rammywhite wrote:Nigel,
I imagine that ED's estate will be a complicated affair and may take quite a few months to settle. Moonshift will still exist as an investment company as ED will have indicated in his will who he has left his shares  in the company to. So the position of the £15m soft debt still remains an issue. I imagine again that EDs kids have picked up the shares and as they have little interest in BWFC ( and there's no reason why they should) they might leave things alone for a short while whilst the dust settles - then press for repayment Or ED may have specified in his will that the loan runs for a given length of time before repayment is due.
 Its all speculation like so much more on this thread.
The short term loan to KA though a few weeks before EDs death is more interesting- but again none of us has a clue about the terms and conditions of that loan.
Better off just watching the 'football' and seeing us get tommed by Leeds next Saturday

Even from what you've said there, it could be reasoned that times running out for Ken and Administration is looming.

Nigelbwfc wrote:

rammywhite wrote:Nigel,
I imagine that ED's estate will be a complicated affair and may take quite a few months to settle. Moonshift will still exist as an investment company as ED will have indicated in his will who he has left his shares  in the company to. So the position of the £15m soft debt still remains an issue. I imagine again that EDs kids have picked up the shares and as they have little interest in BWFC ( and there's no reason why they should) they might leave things alone for a short while whilst the dust settles - then press for repayment Or ED may have specified in his will that the loan runs for a given length of time before repayment is due.
 Its all speculation like so much more on this thread.
The short term loan to KA though a few weeks before EDs death is more interesting- but again none of us has a clue about the terms and conditions of that loan.
Better off just watching the 'football' and seeing us get tommed by Leeds next Saturday

Even from what you've said there, it could be reasoned that times running out for Ken and Administration is looming.

Anderson's options as far as I can see: 
* sell to someone who has adequate money and business acumen to finance and run a football club
* produce some money of his own
* win the lottery
These options also require that the business is run profitably otherwise the continued decline will eventually bite.
The fourth option seems to the one he is going for i.e. forget investment, ramp up austerity and cost cutting even further, pray that the players will turn it round on the pitch to secure survival and hope that he can keep us afloat long enough for him to secure an exit on his terms. If he seriously thinks that selling shirts is a substitute for good management and building partnerships we are in big trouble.
We should be looking at scenario planning for administration i.e. hope and pray that investors will come back to the table and save the club.

Whatever happens, I hope we don't go tits up before the Stoke game on the 29th, I've just forked out £220 for 4 hospitality tickets.

gloswhite wrote:Whatever happens, I hope we don't go tits up before the Stoke game on the 29th, I've just forked out £220 for 4 hospitality tickets.

You must be out of your mind pal.

MartinBWFC wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Whatever happens, I hope we don't go tits up before the Stoke game on the 29th, I've just forked out £220 for 4 hospitality tickets.

You must be out of your mind pal.

I was thinking the same!

Sluffy wrote:

Growler wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Simple enough answer.

It was Gartside not Davies who ran the club and handed out the contract to Amos.

Who knows why Davies let him do what he did - but that's the reality of things.

I don't believe that Gartside was 100% responsible for the poor decision making

As one example, Gartside said that he wanted to bring Sam Allardyce back as manager but Eddie Davies wouldn't have him back.I don't think Gartside was lying, I think Davies had the final say in stuff like that

There were more poor financial decisions made under Eddie Davies' ownership.Another one was turning down £5 million from Swansea City for  "sicknote" Mark Davies after we had been relegated to the Championship.Sure enough a few weeks later he got crocked again and we were lumbered with a 30k a week contract in the sick bay.Mark Davies getting injured wasn't bad luck, it was inevitable.He was a sick note before we signed him and a sicknote for us before we turned down the lottery win offered by Swansea
The financial mismanagement under Eddie Davies is why we were screwed at the time Anderson came in, but it seems taboo to talk about it.

Taboo talking about it by who?

I've certainly not stopped anyone talking about it?

In fact I've always and often stated that we were a financial basket case club that Anderson has been attempting to turn around, so I'm certainly not one who has been shy to mention it many times before.

Davies was I believe a tax exile as such and could only spend a set number of days in the year in this country otherwise he would lose his favourable tax benefit of living on the Isle of Man, so clearly was not in day to day charge of the club.  Gartside was.

I'm more inclined to believe Gartside (an accountant himself remember) took the decisions and Davies rubber stamped them.

Either way it doesn't matter much now as they are both dead and buried and the club is weighed down from the burden of debt from under their stewardship of the club.

I don't think anyone believes otherwise, so I haven't got the foggiest why you seem to think it is some sort of a taboo subject on here?

Maybe if that muppet Iles had got his finger out and actually questioned what indeed was Davies wealth and why little old Bolton was running a debt that only United, Real Madrid and Valencia (who nearly went bust like we did) in the entire world could match - like I was openly wondering at the time - then maybe at least things wouldn't have played out a little differently perhaps?

Water under the bridge now, we are where we are and we've got to deal with it.

Full scale editorial attacks and stirring up the twitter know nothings isn't helping much in my opinion, even though it might help Iles sell a few papers more.

Iles is as much a born and bred Wanderers fan as Anderson is - many people tend to forget that.  He's as loyal to Bolton as his next pay cheque.  If he was offered a job too good to turn down at say the Gillingham Evening News tomorrow, he would soon be Gillingham's number one twitter fan no doubt and forget the Wanderers soon enough no doubt.

Is that any difference (apart from the scale) that Anderson is doing - they have both come to Bolton to earn their money, do well, then move off when the time is right for them for perhaps another club?

Anderson is just the custodian of the club in just the same way as Iles is just the custodian of the post of club reporter - the rest of us will still be here after they are both gone.

Surely at times like this we should all be pulling together, not actively and deliberately trying to tear things apart?

Iles and the ST's recent attacks on Anderson will come to nothing - Administration won't be happening soon if that is what they were hoping for.

However their shit stirring may have a longer term corrosive effect on the club and that helps no one who wants the best for us at this difficult time.

Nice to see from Iles recent tweets from yesterday evening that he's took it upon himself to see if the PFA involvement in payment of the wages might trigger another embargo for the club.

Whose side is he on ffs?

Almost if he wants to see us go under with Anderson in charge - just as the ST have been wanting all along!

I know you didn't mean it in the pejorative way that others used it, Sluffy, but Eddie Davies was the very antithesis of a tax exile. He wasn't resident in the UK, he wasn't ordinarily resident in the UK and he wasn't domiciled in the UK and he exposed his wealth to the highest possible rates of UK taxation by subsidising the wages of footballers and managers in the English Premier League and Championship.

And do you honestly think that KA would have taken on BWFC if it was 'a basket case'? It wasn't. It was a big challenge and a gamble but one that he was ready to take on at no or minimal cost other than his time and expertise.

Not sure if it's true but my mate at the club thinks the PFA loan has been withdrawn. Wonder how the Ken club will spin that

Kane57 wrote:Not sure if it's true but my mate at the club thinks the PFA loan has been withdrawn. Wonder how the Ken club will spin that

Iles reported it as true already -

Trouble at the mill again... I understand the PFA loan was pulled. Players and staff still unpaid. Club has to find all the cash, and soon. Story coming up!!

Ah right presume that's twitter then as I'm not on there.

So.....how do we put this on Iles, Holdsworth or the Trust then

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I know you didn't mean it in the pejorative way that others used it, Sluffy, but Eddie Davies was the very antithesis of a tax exile. He wasn't resident in the UK, he wasn't ordinarily resident in the UK and he wasn't domiciled in the UK and he exposed his wealth to the highest possible rates of UK taxation by subsidising the wages of footballers and managers in the English Premier League and Championship.

Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick about this but I was under the impression that Eddie lived on the Iles of Man because of the advantageous tax rules on the island (Same reason people like Nigel Mansell did also).

My understanding was that the IoM tax rules was that to qualify for the reduced tax regime he had to physically reside on the island for half a year and subsequently is limited to the period of time he can be away from the island by such as being in England.

As we know Mr Davies had more strings to his bow than just BWFC (the V and A, Kew Gardens, Bolton Museum, Manchester Business School, etc, etc.), his time would have been incredibly limited to micro-manage the club himself and thus he put his trust and belief in Gartside and most of the decisions day to day, that he took. He clearly did have the final word - for instance when (incredibly as it seems now - and certainly to me at the time!) he was in the process of extending Coyle's contract.

Thankfully Eddie told him to sack him instead!

Maybe I did use the term 'tax exile' in the wrong sense but as I've explained above I was under the belief that his residence on the IoM was based upon a personal tax advantage.

No disrespect to him/his memory at all intended.