PLAYER MATCH RATINGS: Hull City 6 Bolton Wanderers 0

Wanderers collapsed in the second half at the KCOM Stadium to suffer an embarrassing 6-0 defeat to Hull City.

No-one came out well from a woeful 90 minutes - but how did each player rate. Marc Iles give his verdict.

WANDERERS (4-1-4-1)

BEN ALNWICK…5

Made two very good saves in the midst of all the madness. But hardly a birthday celebration for the Bolton keeper.

JASON LOWE…4

Outstanding at full-back in the previous two games but out-classed here by Grosicki and the over-lapping Kingsley.

MARK BEEVERS…4

Had a decent first half but then lost his way completely after the break. Seemed to lack concentration.

DAVID WHEATER…4

A poor performance which was completely out of character. Couldn’t get close to Hull’s attacking players. Looked leggy.

JONATHAN GROUNDS…3.5

Made a series of errors in the second half and ended up swamped by Bowen, who ran rampant down the Hull right in the end.

MARC WILSON…4.5

Had a very average first half, felt a thigh injury, and was substituted. One of the lucky ones, you might say.

CLAYTON DONALDSON…3.5

A very poor miss in the first half. Simply has to be better than that. Virtually anonymous in the second half.

GARY O’NEIL…5

Maybe the only outfield player who escapes major blame. Got involved for the first hour and put some decent crosses into the box.

JOSH VELA…4

Lacked the same bite and energy he had shown against Stoke. Dropped deeper after the break and caught the error bug.

SAMMY AMEOBI…3.5

Really is struggling to get into games. Masked over with effort against Stoke and Rotherham but here he was just a peripheral character.

CHRISTIAN DOIDGE…4

Didn’t touch the ball in Hull’s penalty box. Got close to a couple of crosses in the first half an hour but really could not get involved.

Subs: Oztumer 3.5, 45 (for Wilson) – On a different page to his team-mates.

Noone 4, 65 (for Donaldson) – Didn’t improve things.

Olkowski 82 (for Ameobi)

Not used: Matthews, Hobbs, Murphy, Magennis.

Hull City (4-4-1-1): Marshall; Lichaj, Burke, de Wijs, Kingsley; Bowen, Henriksen, Stewart, Grosicki; Evandro; Martin.

Subs: Toral 66 (for Evandro), Batty 73 (for Stewart), Dicko 78 (for Martin)

Not used: Long, Kane, Keane, McKenzie.

Referee: Tony Harrington (Cleveland) 7 – Not a particularly difficult game to referee but Harrington kept things ticking along. A bonus point for only adding one minute of extra time to the second half.

Attendance: 12,418

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

Generous - and the irony of making a goalkeeper who shipped 6 and a 35 year old midfielder joint top performers is not lost on me.

wanderlust wrote:Generous - and the irony of making a goalkeeper who shipped 6 and a 35 year old midfielder joint top performers is not lost on me.

You just love revelling in us losing and having so shit players.

Go and support someone else if all you want is for us to fail all the time.

Lusty and Iles are right though, Sluffy.....Mind you, there were plenty of other elder statesmen playing, besides O'Neil, all of whom were marked pitifully but accurately low,..... and tragically the younger brigade, plus Oztumer, that so many have been crying out for, were even worse.

I'm not sure that any new manager could achieve much with players that can't pass straight, can't control a ball, or can't pass and move at pace. However, the time is surely coming when we have to try something else, something new.

okocha wrote:Lusty and Iles are right though, Sluffy.....Mind you, there were plenty of other elder statesmen playing, besides O'Neil, all of whom were marked pitifully but accurately low,..... and tragically the younger brigade, plus Oztumer, that so many have been crying out for, were even worse.

I'm not sure that any new manager could achieve much with players that can't pass straight, can't control a ball, or can't pass and move at pace. However, the time is surely coming when we have to try something else, something new.

I'm not questioning Iles marks - I wasn't there to judge for myself.

What I am questioning is Wanderlust's utter, utter delight in pointing out our best two players were a 35 year old and the keeper who let six in.

We all know times are bad but I've never understood how people would want to see us keep losing so that the manager gets fired - it's always been Bolton first the manager second for me - I never even wanted us to lose under Coyle for him to get sacked sooner than he was - so it's beyond my comprehension how nutjobs like Wanderlust are just willing, hoping, wishing, praying for us to go into Administration - just to get shut of Anderson as the owner!

Do people really believe like Wanderlust obviously does that there are a queue of American and Saudi multi billionaires wanting to buy little old Bolton Wanderers and are driven off by an owner (according to the likes of Wanderlust) without two pennies to rub together who has apparently unreasonable valuation of the club?

Christ if they wanted the club they'd buy it - the odd million or three is fuck all to them and their immense wealth.

Bolton hasn't been sold because it isn't an attractive buy - it's as simple as that.

Anderson HAS put money into the club - Companies House documentation clearly shows that.

We are where we are and for good or bad we have to do our best until something better turns up.

Wishing for us to keep losing or go into Administration isn't going to help our situation much.

Or maybe Wanderlust and the other nutjobs would rather Anderson goes and we get another Holdsworth in and another massive BluMarble type payday loan deal instead?

A proper hijack. Mentalist.

Kane57 wrote:A proper hijack. Mentalist.

Well you should know all about being a mentalist with you having real life legal action taken against you for stuff you posted on social media and having to quit being the editor of your beloved LoV and ditch your 75,000 tweeted Twitter account because of it!

I'm certainly a very, very long way away from being at your level of mentalism yet then thankfully.

I really don't think you are

Kane57 wrote:I really don't think you are

Well, we will both know that if I'm ever sued for something I've said on social media and I have to quit being on my own site and pack in my Twitter 'life' - just like what happened to you!

So until that day comes you are clearly a long, long way in front of me when it comes to being a proven mentalist...



...and that's why you still can't stop yourself from coming on here just to have a pop at me - as you just can't let things go can you - and I doubt you ever will.

You fail to see the irony in all that - hence why you're a complete crackpot

Kane57 wrote:You fail to see the irony in all that - hence why you're a complete crackpot

What I do see is a saddo going to the time and trouble to troll someone they don't know or have ever met, simply because they don't share your point of view on something as serious as a game of football!

I also see the same saddo as someone now in his thirties with a young family still acting like a spoilt child over something and nothing that happened on an obscure internet football forum getting on for over ten years ago now.

I might well be a crackpot but by Christ there's more in my life than to be petty and petulant enough to carry on a perceived internet sleight from a decade or more ago.

I've offered you the hand of friendship many, many times in the past but you quite clearly don't want to know, as you rather keep festering on things I've long since forgotten about.

You only come to Nuts to post for one reason - we all can see that - but in your head I'm the mentalist and you're presumably normal and sane.

I've got news for you though - normal and sane people don't get legal action taken against them for things they post on the internet, nor do they harbour grudges and carry on internet vendettas for ten years or more.

If you don't care much for me or what I post, then fine - simply don't bother reading what I post then - it's not hard to do really is it?

Or it isn't for normal, sane people!

I see that too

What I'm failing to see is my "utter delight" in all this when "utter despair" pretty well sums up my opinion of the Anderson tenure.

You can't understand madness like his

I fail to understand how it is quite clear from Companies House data that Ken has put money into the Club. As far as I can see, Ken borrowed money from Eddie then lent it to BWFC. Only Ken knows why there wasn't a straight arrangement between Eddie and BWFC.

maconman wrote:I fail to understand how it is quite clear from Companies House data that Ken has put money into the Club. As far as I can see, Ken borrowed money from Eddie then lent it to BWFC. Only Ken knows why there wasn't a straight arrangement between Eddie and BWFC.

Makes me wonder if Eddie knew he wasn't going to be around to write that loan off too, thereby leveraging some personal investment from Anderson? He did die hours after the arrangement was made but it's no more than an interesting speculation. Guess we'll never know.

maconman wrote:I fail to understand how it is quite clear from Companies House data that Ken has put money into the Club. As far as I can see, Ken borrowed money from Eddie then lent it to BWFC. Only Ken knows why there wasn't a straight arrangement between Eddie and BWFC.

It isn't at all difficult to understand.

KA's borrowed money - yes - he borrowed it from Davies as a personal loan (but it would have been exactly the same as if he borrowed it from a bank or from a payday loan company such as Wonga).  The fact remains that whoever he borrowed it from, he has to pay it back to - or lose the assets he put up as collateral - which in this case is his ownership of the club which he (and Davies) believes to be worth £5 million.

What he does with the loan is up to him (unless it is written into the condition of the loan) - so in a sense he could simply pocket the money, walk away from the club and in effect sell BWFC back to Davies for the £5 million he was reportedly looking for.

He didn't.

Instead he put the £5 million into the club - and hence the charge on the club assets.  The money being used to pay off BluMarble for under £5 million (they were looking for over £8 million!) and other debts apparently such as Heathcote.

So now he has a personal liability of £5 million in the club and if he doesn't find that sum by the time it falls due (some reports suggest as early as February?) then he's lost the club.

I would say that should be crystal clear to everyone that KA has put money into the club.


But even more than that - now a major creditor himself in the club as well as owner of around 95% of it, that if he lets the club fall into Administration, then it is more than likely he will have to accept a lower repayment settlement to himself than that £5 million he put into it.

However his personal debt to Davies (Moonshift to be more precise) will still remain at £5 million to be paid in full - or he loses his ownership of it.

So to put it simply he has a concrete financial interest in the club doing well or otherwise he will lose his personal money on it or even lose ownership of it completely!


Do you get it now?

So, as I say, he borrowed the money from Eddie and lent it to BWFC. I don't think that is actually the same as Ken gifting money to BWFC.

maconman wrote:So, as I say, he borrowed the money from Eddie and lent it to BWFC. I don't think that is actually the same as Ken gifting money to BWFC.

KA's not 'given' money to BWFC as such - if he had it would have been known as 'equity' and not as a 'charge' against assets as Companies House show.

KA clearly wants that £5 million back and as loaned it to the club as a 'creditor' as I have taken pains to highlight above.

More to the point is what happens if he doesn't pay the loan back.

Davies loan was against KA's ownership of BWFC, so if he defaults he's lost the club which both parties have valued at £5 million - agreed?

We don't know the terms KA loaned the money to BWFC but it seems doubtful that the club could pay a £5 million loan back in the immediate future and still remain solvent - agree?

KA could arrange for the £5 million to Davies to be paid by other means - say his own personal finances however - agree?

So if he went down this route he still owns the club but has £5 million of his own money tied up in it as a creditor - agree?

If the club goes into Administration it is more than probable that the major creditors (of which KA is now one himself) would have to take a percentage on the pound of what they are owed in order to come out of Administration - agree?

As such he will lose his personal money would he not?

So if he doesn't pay Davies the loan back in time he loses the club for nothing - however he would still be a creditor of the club but at best he will have to wait probably some years to be paid or at worse lose everything.

If he does pay Davies back, then in all probability is that the money as come from somewhere else other than the club and he will have £5 million of his own money at risk if the club fell into Administration.

Any way you look at it KA is at some risk financially whether you want to believe it or not.

Even if defaulted on the loan and walked away from the club he's wasted three years of his time and effort and faced a massive amount of aggravation for relatively little reward (for a man with his wealth) even if you did believe he was pocketing £525,000 per year (which of course he wasn't).

So presumably you are saying that the £525,000 pocketed in respect of the 2016/17 year was just something made up.