You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Forest 1-0 Wanderers

Forest 1-0 Wanderers

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

31Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 15:02

Cajunboy

Cajunboy
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
I don't know if it's just me, but I  have lost interest in all football this season because of the Bolton situation.

In the past I've always enjoyed a wider enjoyment from The Premiership and the other leagues despite our downward spiral, but  this season has really knocked the stuffing out of my love of football.

32Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 15:32

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I don't know if it's just me, but I  have lost interest in all football this season because of the Bolton situation.

In the past I've always enjoyed a wider enjoyment from The Premiership and the other leagues despite our downward spiral, but  this season has really knocked the stuffing out of my love of football.

I've not really had very much interest in football - apart from BWFC - for many years now.

It's got to the extent that I didn't even know who some of the players were playing for England at the World Cup were or even which team they were playing for!

The money in football is obscene - for which when all said and done is just a game.

There's something wrong somewhere when people value some random young millionaires kicking a ball about more than society falling apart with teachers having to buy equipment for their schools, hospitals not having enough beds for the people needing treatment, people sleeping on the streets in the twenty first century and mankind generally fucking up the planet for the next generations to come.

The world probably has always been a bit mad but its certainly getting worse as far as I can see and sport in general, with football in particular is seemingly now fed to us as the new opium of the people, to dull our minds and sensibilities to what is going on around us.

Millionaires going on strike because their next wodge of thousands of pounds isn't in their bank on the right day and refusing to kick a ball about for 90 minutes because of it just about sums it all up for me.

33Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 15:47

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
There's a wonderful book out called 'When Footballers Were Skint' by Jon Henderson.
Well worth a read.

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

34Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 16:41

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
W 8

D 8

L 30.

That win percentage alone should see Parkinson off, that's if we still have a club after next week.

35Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 18:50

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:W 8

D 8

L 30.

That win percentage alone should see Parkinson off, that's if we still have a club after next week.

He's on a rolling contract.

Unless he decides to walk then someone will have to pay up his contract.

Simple as that really.

36Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 19:12

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Millionaires going on strike because their next wodge of thousands of pounds isn't in their bank on the right day and refusing to kick a ball about for 90 minutes because of it just about sums it all up for me.

So you'll knock the "millionaire" players but not the millionaire owner?

37Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 20:10

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
And so the season from Hell ends with a whimper rather than a bang. A 1-0 defeat in these circumstances is almost an anti-climax really.

38Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 20:49

Buellix

Buellix
David Ngog
David Ngog
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Well another defeat and no one actually cares, 30 defeats in a season!
Pathetic..
I hadn’t realised it was that bad. Shocked 

Let’s hope Parky gets the chop now!
No-one around to sack him or pay him, will be gone after our next court case.

39Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 21:28

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Millionaires going on strike because their next wodge of thousands of pounds isn't in their bank on the right day and refusing to kick a ball about for 90 minutes because of it just about sums it all up for me.

So you'll knock the "millionaire" players but not the millionaire owner?

Yet again people mix up the difference between the entity which is the club whom employs the players and that of the owner, who doesn't!

The owner could be a billionaire for all I care - his PERSONAL wealth isn't anything to do with the LIMITED company, Bolton Wanderers Football Club.

When will the penny ever drop with some people?

40Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Sun May 05 2019, 23:30

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
That's just semantics and a way for rich people to pass on the debts and not be liable personally when the shit hits the fan. He owns 94.5% of the shares in the club and has let down every single employee whether player or not with his actions.

41Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 00:45

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:That's just semantics and a way for rich people to pass on the debts and not be liable personally when the shit hits the fan. He owns 94.5% of the shares in the club and has let down every single employee whether player or not with his actions.

It just won't sink in with some people will it?

It is not semantics, it is Company LAW!

Limited companies are LIMITED for a very good reason, and that is that an owners (or more accurately a SHARE holders) personal liability is limited to the value of the paid up shares they hold in that company.

Look at it another way, using your view of things if Anderson was responsible to find 94.5% of the debt outstanding the remaining 5,5% of shareholders of the club would be liable for the remaining 5.5% of the debt.

Say the debt is around £40m and there are say 5,000 small share holders then they would be required to find £2.2m or about £440 each.

Do you think those 5,000 small share holders would be thrilled to tip up £440 each for something they had no control over other than to make a small, probably sentimental, investment in a business in the first place?

That's why the law is such that those investing in a business are not 'punished' if the company fails.

The shareholders appoint the Directors of the company to oversee it is running in accordance of the law and the wishes of its shareholders.  If the company fails through illegal practices then the Directors are NOT protected by limited liability and can be personally liable for the total debt.

Anderson is of course a Director and IF the club has failed through something illegal that he's had his fingers in, then he could be made personally liable for all the losses.

Limited liability has been in operation for a century or more and not something invented last week to stop Anderson putting his hand in his pocket and paying the club debts personally!

Christ common sense alone should tell people that apart from the windfall for Madine's transfer we've made a trading loss each and every year for the last twenty years or so and have only been able to get by with Eddie Davies funding the shortfall.

With Eddie no longer here and Anderson not wishing to spend his personal wealth on a business losing money, that we were obviously going to hit the buffers sooner or later this season?

The club spends more than it gets in - it's as simple as that!!!

It's not really rocket science is it?

42Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 06:50

DEANO82

DEANO82
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Well another defeat and no one actually cares, 30 defeats in a season!
We had more defeats than goals scored.

43Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 08:11

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Deary me Sluffy, you are arguing with yourself to create a situation where you’re the only one talking sense.

Nobody is suggesting that Ken has a legal responsibility to pay so please give it a rest.

Your adoration for Anderson has blinded you. We don’t know the facts, until we do fans will build opinions based on the limited knowledge we have - and Anderson’s record doesn’t help him.



44Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 10:06

rammywhite

rammywhite
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
Can I clear up a few facts here about limited liability and what it means.
 Sluffy is more or less accurate apart from a few little issues. A shareholder has limited liability- but its limited to the amount NOT paid up on ordinary shares- not to the amount that they have subscribed for shares. Thus, suppose a share in a company has a nominal value ( that's the value specified in the Memorandum and Articles of Association - the company 'constitution') of £1. Shares have been issued and subscribers have paid in 75p per share and shares have been allocated to them. They have not as yet paid up the full nominal value of £1- therefore their liability is limited to 25p per share- the amount unpaid up to the nominal value. In many cases ( like Lloyds of London) they might never be asked for the 25p if the company doesn't need it.
Next the shareholders DO elect the company directors and agency theory and practice says that their duty is to carry out the will of the shareholders SUBJECT to the constraints imposed on them and companies by company law, statute and legal precedent.
The legal notion of the 'corporate veil' is important here. If directors continue to trade whilst knowingly insolvent ( difficult to prove) then they are guilty of s criminal offence- and its highly probable that Anderson might fall into this trap should the lawyers representing unpaid creditors  go down that route.
The corporate veil is a notion, a construct , that directors/companies hide behind and the law supports it but doesn't like it. Without being too technical there is a distinction in law between 'piercing' the corporate veil and 'lifting' the corporate veil and there is scope here for legal action to be taken against Anderson under this legal construct as he has  continued trading whilst he knew the company was essentially bankrupt. That exists at the moment as the company is still trading  and is insolvent.
If you want to ascertain the accuracy of all of this go and Google the following two cases, Salomon v. Salomon and then Lee v Lees Air Farming Ltd. Subsequent case law and statute is whittling down the strength and depth of these two cases( e.g. the Insolvency Act 1986).
However these are two mighty legal cases which support the idea of legal separation ( this is what Sluffy is generally referring to) which says a company is a separate legal identity with a persona in law which can sue and be sued, own assets and liabilities in its own right.. Its not precisely the idea of limited liability- but legal separation of shareholders and the company in which they own shares in.
Without trying to sound like a complete pedant on a bank Holiday Monday, limited liability has existed for about 400 years- the guilds developed it in the late 1500s, and it evolved from trust law which goes back about 300 years before that and was created by the Church to protect its property.
So Sluffy is correct. Leaving aside the moral argument as to whether Anderson, as the owner of the business should pay the bills from his own pocket, he has no personal liability for those debts as they belong to the company. What happens next is up to the lawyers to decide whether he had broken the law in continuing to trade.
Lesson over !!

45Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 10:30

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
For a finance rant, that was actually very interesting! Thanks Rammy.

46Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 11:16

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Can I clear up a few facts here about limited liability and what it means.
 Sluffy is more or less accurate apart from a few little issues. A shareholder has limited liability- but its limited to the amount NOT paid up on ordinary shares- not to the amount that they have subscribed for shares. Thus, suppose a share in a company has a nominal value ( that's the value specified in the Memorandum and Articles of Association - the company 'constitution') of £1. Shares have been issued and subscribers have paid in 75p per share and shares have been allocated to them. They have not as yet paid up the full nominal value of £1- therefore their liability is limited to 25p per share- the amount unpaid up to the nominal value. In many cases ( like Lloyds of London) they might never be asked for the 25p if the company doesn't need it.
Next the shareholders DO elect the company directors and agency theory and practice says that their duty is to carry out the will of the shareholders SUBJECT to the constraints imposed on them and companies by company law, statute and legal precedent.
The legal notion of the 'corporate veil' is important here. If directors continue to trade whilst knowingly insolvent ( difficult to prove) then they are guilty of s criminal offence- and its highly probable that Anderson might fall into this trap should the lawyers representing unpaid creditors  go down that route.
The corporate veil is a notion, a construct , that directors/companies hide behind and the law supports it but doesn't like it. Without being too technical there is a distinction in law between 'piercing' the corporate veil and 'lifting' the corporate veil and there is scope here for legal action to be taken against Anderson under this legal construct as he has  continued trading whilst he knew the company was essentially bankrupt. That exists at the moment as the company is still trading  and is insolvent.
If you want to ascertain the accuracy of all of this go and Google the following two cases, Salomon v. Salomon and then Lee v Lees Air Farming Ltd. Subsequent case law and statute is whittling down the strength and depth of these two cases( e.g. the Insolvency Act 1986).
However these are two mighty legal cases which support the idea of legal separation ( this is what Sluffy is generally referring to) which says a company is a separate legal identity with a persona in law which can sue and be sued, own assets and liabilities in its own right.. Its not precisely the idea of limited liability- but legal separation of shareholders and the company in which they own shares in.
Without trying to sound like a complete pedant on a bank Holiday Monday, limited liability has existed for about 400 years- the guilds developed it in the late 1500s, and it evolved from trust law which goes back about 300 years before that and was created by the Church to protect its property.
So Sluffy is correct. Leaving aside the moral argument as to whether Anderson, as the owner of the business should pay the bills from his own pocket, he has no personal liability for those debts as they belong to the company. What happens next is up to the lawyers to decide whether he had broken the law in continuing to trade.
Lesson over !!

Thanks very much Rammy, I appreciate you going to the trouble to do so.

I've learned that stating facts are generally irrelevant to those who have decided already to blame Anderson for everything and anything without one shred of evidence to support their view.

Maybe folk will believe you better than they have believed me in regards to Anderson having no legal requirement to fund the losses at the club from his personal wealth.

I've no doubt Anderson is not a saint but it is still wrong to try and hang him because of it over a crime he hasn't done - namely not subsidising the club personally like Eddie and other club owners did/do, from their own pocket.

47Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 11:46

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
As rammy said it may not be legal responsibility but morally he is a shitbag. He is prepared to let the club go to the wall just so he can claim to be a creditor. He owns 94.5% of the club so who else is responsible for this mess?
Oh and climb off that high horse Sluffy, you are so patronising it's painful.

48Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 12:11

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:As rammy said it may not be legal responsibility but morally he is a shitbag. He is prepared to let the club go to the wall just so he can claim to be a creditor. He owns 94.5% of the club so who else is responsible for this mess?
Oh and climb off that high horse Sluffy, you are so patronising it's painful.

The "responsibility for the mess" is how the COMPANY, BWFC, has dealt with it's income against expenditure and has absolutely nothing to do with how much Anderson has in his own personal pocket.

If you don't like the situation then blame 400 years of the legal system building up to what it is today and not me for simply trying to explain how things are.

Also when has business ever been about morals?

Otto Berman summed it up over 80 years ago - "Nothing personal, it's just business"!

49Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 12:30

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I don't want to continually argue with you Sluffy but you honestly sound like you don't care about the club. 
This is not just a hypothetical problem and just business we are talking about here, it's our beloved club and i am gutted when i see what a mess we are in and what could potentially happen to us. I get the impression you don't feel the same, correct me if i'm wrong though.
You'll probably say i'm being overly emotional but that's what supporting my team means to me after over 30 years of going to watch them.

50Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 12:50

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I've learned that stating facts are generally irrelevant to those who have decided already to blame Anderson for everything and anything without one shred of evidence to support their view.

Maybe folk will believe you better than they have believed me in regards to Anderson having no legal requirement to fund the losses at the club from his personal wealth.

Yet again, nobody is arguing this. 

Where are these battles with 'anti-andersons' you constantly refer to actually taking place?

51Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 13:08

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I don't want to continually argue with you Sluffy but you honestly sound like you don't care about the club. 
This is not just a hypothetical problem and just business we are talking about here, it's our beloved club and i am gutted when i see what a mess we are in and what could potentially happen to us. I get the impression you don't feel the same, correct me if i'm wrong though.
You'll probably say i'm being overly emotional but that's what supporting my team means to me after over 30 years of going to watch them.

Well I've been following them for over 50 years and long before you were even born.

I've even had the privilege to set up Nuts with Nat and RT, and put my hand in my pocket to help fund it since, simply so we can chat about the club, so I certainly don't get why you don't think it's future matters to me?

If it goes under it will certainly leave a massive hole in my life to fill from that time on.

Because I'm calm and analytical in my nature doesn't mean I'm not hurting to see how the club has been run under Anderson's tenure, he's clearly not a saint BUT that doesn't mean he's guilty of everything he's been accused of either.

No matter what people think the law says he is not responsible as the owner (owner of 94.5% of the company shares) to put his own personal money into the club to help it.

That is the fact of the matter and no calling me names or labelling me an Anderson lover is going to change that.

Fwiw, I believe the club will eventually be taken over and that there will more than likely be yet another adjournment at the winders court whilst a deal is completed by a syndicate which is backed by Eddies estate and includes Michael James.

I even think the ST will be a part of it - for no other reason than they have first dibs on the club when it is put into Admin (which it is going to have to be to wipe out some of the debt owing).

Going to be a long few months to come yet unfortunately.

I'll still be here though - Bolton till I die and all that.

52Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 13:23

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
That's more like it Sluffy, a bit of passion about BWFC, i will never agree with you on Kenocchio though  Very Happy

53Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 13:27

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Because I'm calm and analytical in my nature doesn't mean I'm not hurting to see how the club has been run under Anderson's tenure, he's clearly not a saint BUT that doesn't mean he's guilty of everything he's been accused of either.

You've been neither calm, nor analytical in your attacks on any poster questioning Anderson over the past 3 years.

54Forest 1-0 Wanderers - Page 2 Empty Re: Forest 1-0 Wanderers on Mon May 06 2019, 13:38

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Because I'm calm and analytical in my nature doesn't mean I'm not hurting to see how the club has been run under Anderson's tenure, he's clearly not a saint BUT that doesn't mean he's guilty of everything he's been accused of either.

You've been neither calm, nor analytical in your attacks on any poster questioning Anderson over the past 3 years.
Or any supporting the ST. Very Happy

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

Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

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