You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers News » Bolton Wanderers embargo leaves three players in limbo

Bolton Wanderers embargo leaves three players in limbo

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
WANDERERS could lose three first team players for the FA Cup tie against Walsall on Saturday because of a new registration embargo.

It is understood Christian Doidge, Remi Matthews and Gary O’Neil cannot figure in the third round tie unless special dispensation is granted by the EFL and the Football Association.

Both Doidge and Matthews were due to sign for Bolton on a permanent basis before the weekend, following loan moves from Forest Green Rovers and Norwich City, respectively.

O’Neil had been on a short-term contract and was due to sign an extension to the end of the current campaign.

But The Bolton News has learned that a registration embargo has been placed on Wanderers by the league because they have at least one outstanding football creditor, leaving all three players in limbo.

One creditor is known to be The Professional Footballer’s Association, who provided a substantial loan to the club for salaries paid to football staff in both November and December.

Players were informed of the news by manager Phil Parkinson at the training ground this morning (Thursday).

Dialogue between the club and the league will continue tomorrow morning in an effort to get the embargo lifted, and the final say on any involvement for the trio would then be decided by the FA, who control registration for the cup, before the close of business today.

Striker Doidge signed for Wanderers from Forest Green in a loan-to-buy deal which could eventually be worth £1million It is understood payments of £250,000 have been agreed with the League Two club, some of which are dependent on his success at Wanderers.

It is not known whether an upfront payment was paid by Wanderers in September or whether two payments are now due - but Forest Green owner Dale Vince said earlier this week of the Doidge money: “It’s coming in instalments, and that’s fine. It doesn’t matter.”

The striker – who has made 17 appearances this season for the Whites - also hinted that the permanent contract he has agreed to sign will tie him to the North West for a considerable time in a recent interview.

“I’ve got that long-term contract, so this is a club that I can happily stay at for a long time," he told reporters after the Boxing Day victory against Rotherham United.

“Every club I have been at – Dagenham, Forest Green – I have enjoyed being there.

“I’ve enjoyed being around the community, so hopefully I can do that here."

A nominal fee is also due for goalkeeper, Matthews, after he signed on a loan-to-buy from Norwich in August.

The 24-year-old made four appearances in league and cup earlier this season when deputising for the injured Ben Alnwick, and was in-line to start against Walsall.

Experienced midfielder O’Neil penned a short-term contract in the summer which is now up for renewal, but it is understood he cannot be re-registered without permission from the league.

The matter leaves Parkinson with more selection problems in his squad for this weekend's cup game, as he looks for a response from his players following the 6-0 defeat against Hull City.

Wanderers have been contacted for comment.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/17334153.bolton-wanderers-embargo-leaves-three-players-in-limbo/

Cajunboy

Cajunboy
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Considering our financial state I've always wondered if the Doidge deal might fall apart before it was completed.

Hipster_Nebula

Hipster_Nebula
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Who cares they're all shite.

Growler


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Hopefully this will bring Ken out of hiding to tell us how it's all somebody else's fault. Where has Ken gone?, he didn't even wish us happy Xmas!

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
One outstanding Creditor is the PFA.  I thought Ken paid the wages from his own pocket?

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
@BoltonTillIDie wrote:One outstanding Creditor is the PFA.  I thought Ken paid the wages from his own pocket?
Hmmmm.

Growler


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly

Accounts for 2017 show that Anderson paid himself a £525,000 consultancy fee and a further £125,000 to a company owned by a family member.
 
Aye, but a  couple of our posters know better than the Daily Mail  don't they?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Growler wrote:

Accounts for 2017 show that Anderson paid himself a £525,000 consultancy fee and a further £125,000 to a company owned by a family member.
 
Aye, but a  couple of our posters know better than the Daily Mail  don't they?

Obviously aimed at me.

I don't think anybody as ever questions the auditors note in the last publish accounts have they?  However I for one question the widely held belief - WITHOUT ANY PROOF - the payments were for wages for KA and LA.

I'd be more than delighted if you could provide any sort of link to Athos the company owned by this 'family member' just so we can ALL see who exactly received the payment - it could have been his grandma for all the proof anybody has provided so far.

Similarly feel free to provide proof that KA benefited from the £525,000 himself, as Ten Bob as clearly shown a 'coincidence' shall we say, between the payment to KA's company for consultation purposes and Holdsworth seemingly coming into a substantial sum of money sometime shortly afterwards.

If you, or indeed anyone else, can produce such proof of either or both of the instances above then I'd be more than happy to eat a huge amount of humble pie and offer my apologise of ever doubting that you and nearly everyone else gullible to believe stuff that they've simply been 'told', had been right all along.

There's plenty out there like you who fully believe this £650,000 has found it's way into the Anderson's back pockets, so it shouldn't be too hard for one or other of you to simply prove it then really is there?

I look forward to you shortly providing the links accordingly then.

It will certainly a lot better everyone KNOWING for certain that they took the money for themselves rather than just GUESSING that they probably did - won't it?

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
It's not as if Anderson has any form when it comes to this sort of thing. Has he? Wink

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@boltonbonce wrote:It's not as if Anderson has any form when it comes to this sort of thing. Has he? Wink

I know you are only joking but I've spent a lot of time simply to track these two transactions down, simply for my own amusement more than anything else.

If the Anderson's did pocket the money - then they've actually not done anything wrong as the club as obviously survived a further year since when they withdrew the money - and so the club as not traded whilst it was insolvent, otherwise it wouldn't have seen it going up to now.

I certainly can't find any trace of a company named Athos being liked to any Anderson in the Companies House records.  This leads me to three likely reasons for this, namely I've missed it as I've been going along, the company is not registered in the UK, or the 'relative' is not named 'Anderson' - it might be a relation on the mothers family side for instance?

As all of KA's companies have been listed at Companies House, I would have thought if it was Lee Anderson's company - as everyone and their dog seem to believe it is - then it would also have been too.  That's my logic anyway.

As for the £525,000 to KA Company, Ten Bob as previously described how the timing of the payment (less tax deducted) seem to 'coincide' with making a clean break from Holdsworth.

Certainly not hard evidence in itself but certainly a more compelling narrative to me than simply just dipping his hand in the till of his own company that he values at £5 million.  I mean what benefit does it do himself degrading his own assets?  Surely better to use the money to become sole owner instead by buying out DH?

Yes you could equally say he's enriched himself by becoming sole owner - but equally the argument is true that he stands to lose it all if things go pear shaped, and they very well might!

I've never believed KA to be an angel and without blame but then again I don't view him as the Devil incarnate as many happily want him to be.

The vast majority out there calling for his head have simply no idea of how multi-million pound turnover businesses run, particularly when they are in financial difficulty.  Needs must to keep the ship afloat sometimes - as long as they keep the right side of the law in the end though.

Fair play to him getting so far I say and even if he falls, what makes people think things will be better?

People need to be careful what they wish for because one day they might get it!

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
The money going to Holdsworth is no more believable than the Anderson’s receiving the money themselves - less so if anything. It’s speculation either way, no need to try and hammer people when you have zero evidence to the contrary.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y wrote:The money going to Holdsworth is no more believable than the Anderson’s receiving the money themselves - less so if anything. It’s speculation either way, no need to try and hammer people when you have zero evidence to the contrary.

No more believable in what sense?

Are Company House records not factual then?

News to me.

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Again you confuse your opinions with fact.

You can see two transactions - fact.

You’ve decided they’re linked - opinion.

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Growler wrote:Hopefully this will bring Ken out of hiding to tell us how it's all somebody else's fault. Where has Ken gone?, he didn't even wish us happy Xmas!

I’m keen to hear an explanation for this, why did the club statement say the PFA pulled out of a deal so ken paid? If that’s not true, seems a blatant attempt to deceive the fans and spin some positive PR for himself, which seems a bit bizarre.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y wrote:Again you confuse your opinions with fact.

You can see two transactions - fact.

You’ve decided they’re linked - opinion.

What are you talking about???

I've never claimed it to be factual, I've always said that it was an alternative way to view things other than the Andersons were pocketing the money for themselves and that this view does have factual documentation that Holdsworth financial 'luck' seem to suddenly picked up around the time of the payment of £525,000 to Anderson's company.

Coincidence - possibly, but timely!




T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Right so it’s speculation, exactly what I said in my first post.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y wrote:
@Growler wrote:Hopefully this will bring Ken out of hiding to tell us how it's all somebody else's fault. Where has Ken gone?, he didn't even wish us happy Xmas!

I’m keen to hear an explanation for this, why did the club statement say the PFA pulled out of a deal so ken paid? If that’s not true, seems a blatant attempt to deceive the fans and spin some positive PR for himself, which seems a bit bizarre.

What I imagine happened went something like this -
- KA missed Nov payment date to players
- Players reps meets with Ken and reach an agreement on pay
- Players rep then says better they go to PFA for them to get involved
- PFA meet KA and agree to help pay wages
- PFA find outstanding Winding up petition and pulls out of the offer.
- KA announces he will pay the wages out of his own pocket.
- Presumably Winding up petition was only a procedural oversight (KA had said previously it had been dealt with) and now closed and PFA return to offer to pay the wages.
- KA accepts - Nov wages now paid.
- December wages now on the horizon.
- ITK rumours appear on Twitter that KA has cashed in early some of the Sky money due this month (Jan19) to pay them - at 'eye watering interest rates'!
- December wages paid.
- Iles reports that apparently PFA not been reimbursed for helping with Nov and Dec wages.
- I'm guessing KA WAS intending to pay Nov wages out of his own pocket and Dec with the advance from the Sky money at 'eye watering interest rates. but decided to hold fire if the PFA was paying them instead.  I'm guessing further that the PFA would then be paid back from the Sky money and thus save the 'eye watering interest rates' he would have to had paid otherwise.
- Wheels come off with player embargo being issued until PFA and any other football creditors being paid (FGR perhaps?)
- Possible outcome KA delays payment for a fortnight or so until Sky money comes through, everybody paid, no 'eye watering interest rates' to be paid, the three players miss a meaningless cup game and Bristol City away and everything is back on track again - and transfer window still open for last minute £6 million sale of one of our players to Cardiff.
- If I'm right in my summary then is it really the crime of the century that KA didn't go on prime time TV to tell the whole world that he changed his plans to pay the wages himself when the PFA said that they would be happy to do it now the obstacle of the old Winding up petition had been sorted?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y wrote:Right so it’s speculation, exactly what I said in my first post.

???

I never said otherwise have I?

I really have no idea what bee you have in your bonnet?

You just argue for arguing sake.


T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
All I’ve said to you is you have no right to hammer another poster over having a different opinion to you. It’s all speculation, nobody needs to post an essay and links for your validation.

Why do you always need clear English spelling out? Read my first post again and delete your nonsense since.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y wrote:All I’ve said to you is you have no right to hammer another poster over having a different opinion to you. It’s all speculation, nobody needs to post an essay and links for your validation.

Why do you always need clear English spelling out? Read my first post again and delete your nonsense since.

Who the fuck do you think you are?

If you don't like what I post don't read it or go somewhere more to your liking.

Simple.

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
I’ll repeat it one more time - nobody has to validate their opinion to you. Your’s is no more valid than anyone else’s. Just accept that we can have different views on this until any facts come out.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y wrote:I’ll repeat it one more time for you; nobody has to validate their opinions

I never said they HAD to did I?

In fact they can't because no one - not even myself - can find proof - and believe me I've tried.

I've offered an alternative explanation (or more correctly Ten Bob has) where some factual corroboration does exist though it may only be coincidental.

It's not hard to read and understand what I've written - yet once again you find the need to make up some argument about it where I've not even said the things you are arguing about!!!

Pretty clear why you are here and to be honest the novelty is wearing pretty thin now.

If you don't like me then avoid me or go some place else otherwise I think one day the decision will be made for you.

Up to you now.









T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Oh rubbish, you always resort to calling me a WUM purely because you hate being disagreed with. I won’t stop posting my opinions so ban me if you want. Just another regular you’d have chased off.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Sluffy wrote:If you don't like me then avoid me or go some place else otherwise I think one day the decision will be made for you.


:facepalm:

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Bolton Wanderers embargo leaves three players in limbo Maxresdefault

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
I stand by what I've said.

He's just trolling me for a reaction these days and that's not why I or anyone else is here for.

It's not difficult to avoid me or anything I post, so it's entirely up to him how he wants to proceed.

I think that's fair and reasonable.


Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I don't see it as trolling, I just see it as a differing point of view.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't see it as trolling, I just see it as a differing point of view.

Well considering I clearly hadn't said any of the stuff he was basing his arguments against me on, I would disagree completely.

He was looking for a reaction - and not for the first time by a long, long way.

I even still had the decency to answer another genuine question from him on the same thread, and he still continues with an argument that he was clearly making up on the fly.

I know it was trolling, he knows it was trolling and you're certainly not innocent enough to believe it wasn't either!

I'm prepared to accept a bit of 'flack' from time to time but it's becoming constant from him these days and a line needs to be drawn.

I don't believe that to be unreasonable of me.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Also for what it's worth (and vaguely relevant to the original thread) there is a Winding Up order from HMRC against the hotel that was issued yesterday.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum