OFFICIAL - Bolton up for sale for £25 million

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

So there wasn't enough money in the clubs frozen accounts to pay player wages, defend the slimy bastard on that lie Sluffy.

Didn't that useless plank at the EFL say he had been assured by Kenocchio there was enough money to get through to get to the end of the season? It's almost as if someone has been helping themselves before the bank accounts were frozen 

Norpig wrote:How is it fictional when they were pictured being shown round the ground and the ex Bolton sports science fella who's name i can't remember said it was true and is involved?

Yes no one has ever inflated their influence before.

There again, I'm sure representatives of a multi-billion pound corporation have all the time in the world to wander around an almost defunct football club. I doubt they were sightseeing.

As I said. 

Inflation or influence.

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

So there wasn't enough money in the clubs frozen accounts to pay player wages, defend the slimy bastard on that lie Sluffy.

Are we sure that is the case though, or just Iles interpretation of what the Administrators have said?

What we do know is that there IS money in the frozen bank accounts, the club needs to continue to trade during the summer and there is little to no cash flow during the summer break.

How do they do that?

We were told that the EFL Chief Exec that the club had enough money until the end of the (playing) season - what if he actually was telling the truth?

We also know for a fact that the players unlike nearly everyone else WILL be paid ALL their wages eventually.

I put it to you that the Administrators reasoned that there was enough money to pay the players what they were due but if they had, had no money to keep the club going until they eventually sold it - which in other words meant immediate liquidation of assets, maybe even the club itself.

The only practical solution being a negotiated deferment of the players wages with their agreement and the use of that money intended for their wages up to the end of the playing season being used to keep the club running until the sale - at which time the sale income would settle ALL their outstanding wages as they are protected as 'football creditors'.

But hey don't let logic and reason stand in the way off people's blind hatred and probable ignorance of the facts all the facts.

Everything in the post above is an interpretation including your little scenario Sluffy.

How is the KA fan club going by the way Sluffy? Just you left now i take it?

Norpig wrote:Everything in the post above is an interpretation including your little scenario Sluffy.

How is the KA fan club going by the way Sluffy? Just you left now i take it?

I didn't say it wasn't did I?

But it is more than a feasible alternative interpretation is it not?

And for the billionth time I've never been in Anderson's fan club nor ever I ever been in the mob that continues to want to lynch him without knowing the facts first.

I'm sorry if you think that just because I'm following the quaint, old and no doubt bizarre belief to many on here, that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty equates to me being Ken's number one fan.

Sluffy it was a joke, calm down mate 

Norpig wrote:Sluffy it was a joke, calm down mate 

The thing is mate that many actually believe I am Ken's number one fan - Martin for instance.

I noticed Wanderlust posted a 3:00am middle of the night pissed up post (yet again!) over on Wways giving me abuse about it - some people simply are either too stupid or to full of hatred to see that all I've ever asked to see is proof of his guilt before wanting him to be hung.

I don't think that is an unreasonable thing to seek first is it?

Maybe not unreasonable but even you must be wavering now? I suppose we'll have to wait and see what comes out from the administrators and new owners but i bet it won't look good for him.

Norpig wrote:Maybe not unreasonable but even you must be wavering now? I suppose we'll have to wait and see what comes out from the administrators and new owners but i bet it won't look good for him.

How can I waver as I've never actually ever supported him?  

You see that is the point I've tried to make all along - I've never supported him and I've never denounced him - I've simply asked where is the proof he's done the things he's accused of?

Idiots and haters have taken me not joining in with the hysteria to lynch him as somehow proof that I'm a big Anderson supporter - Christ I even read comments where people even though I was Ken himself because of what I post!!!

I also can't seem to get across the fact that there is a vast difference between the legal 'thing' known as Bolton football club and the legal 'thing' who is Ken Anderson.

Just because he 'owns' the club it doesn't in law make him personally responsible for it failing (providing he's done nothing illegal causing it to do so).

Also that what you are legally entitled to do under Company Law, whilst people may consider to be immoral, unethical or unfair may well be completely within the law.

Just because Anderson or anyone else 'plays the system' so to speak he is not actually doing something legally wrong no matter how much people may believe he is or how deeply they hate then for doing so.

If he's found to have done something illegal, then fine punish him for it - I've no problem at all with that.

If he hasn't, then he's done absolutely nothing wrong even if you, me, or the man in the moon may think otherwise.

It's as simple as that but the vast majority of people still can't seem to 'get' it.

The bottom line the Administrators will come out with is the simple fact that the club cost more to run than the income it was generating.

The only question to answer was if Anderson took money out of the club knowingly that this would lead to it failing sooner.

Many believe he did but until the Administrator says so then nobody actually knows despite all the mountains of rubbish that people have posted over the last three years - and that's all I've ever been asking - 'where is the proof' he's done all the things people have accused him of?

Sluffy wrote:
How can I waver as I've never actually ever supported him?  

You see that is the point I've tried to make all along - I've never supported him and I've never denounced him - I've simply asked where is the proof he's done the things he's accused of?

Idiots and haters have taken me not joining in with the hysteria to lynch him as somehow proof that I'm a big Anderson supporter - Christ I even read comments where people even though I was Ken himself because of what I post!!!

I also can't seem to get across the fact that there is a vast difference between the legal 'thing' known as Bolton football club and the legal 'thing' who is Ken Anderson.

Just because he 'owns' the club it doesn't in law make him personally responsible for it failing (providing he's done nothing illegal causing it to do so).

Also that what you are legally entitled to do under Company Law, whilst people may consider to be immoral, unethical or unfair may well be completely within the law.

Just because Anderson or anyone else 'plays the system' so to speak he is not actually doing something legally wrong no matter how much people may believe he is or how deeply they hate then for doing so.

If he's found to have done something illegal, then fine punish him for it - I've no problem at all with that.

If he hasn't, then he's done absolutely nothing wrong even if you, me, or the man in the moon may think otherwise.

It's as simple as that but the vast majority of people still can't seem to 'get' it.

The bottom line the Administrators will come out with is the simple fact that the club cost more to run than the income it was generating.

The only question to answer was if Anderson took money out of the club knowingly that this would lead to it failing sooner.

Many believe he did but until the Administrator says so then nobody actually knows despite all the mountains of rubbish that people have posted over the last three years - and that's all I've ever been asking - 'where is the proof' he's done all the things people have accused him of?

Why do you feel you need to respond to every anti Ken post? why not just put a bag on it and agree to disagree?

You can’t deny Anderson has been a terrible owner for us.  We have gone into admin under his leadership.  We have left staff unpaid for weeks under his leadership.  Our name has been dragged through mud under his leaderboard.

He may not have done anything illegal, but still a terrible owner.

I reckon we should have a Ken ban on the forum. Brexit is consuming me enough! Sluffy, do your stuff

BoltonTillIDie wrote:You can’t deny Anderson has been a terrible owner for us.  We have gone into admin under his leadership.  We have left staff unpaid for weeks under his leadership.  Our name has been dragged through mud under his leaderboard.

He may not have done anything illegal, but still a terrible owner.

The only difference between Anderson and Eddie Davies as an owner is that Eddie pissed away over £200m of his own personal wealth and Ken hasn't been stupid enough to do the same.

Do you see that as some sort of a crime or something on Anderson's part, because I don't.

The clubs been running at a trading loss for 20 years or more (ironically the accounts outstanding up to June 2018 are likely to show a profit due to Mardine's sale).  

If Davies hadn't plundered his children's inheritance since he took on the club, we would have been in Admin, with staff unpaid and our name dragged through the mud, ten years or more ago - so the ongoing trading deficiency is certainly nothing new is it?.

Is Anderson a terrible owner just because he refused to throw his money into a black hole (that quite frankly wasn't even of his making in the first place) after Eddie died?

Would you throw your life savings away keeping Nuts going if you didn't have to?

No you wouldn't and neither would I.

Does that make us equally bad owners as Anderson - because that's basically what his choice was - and he was perfectly in his rights to choose to go the way he did.

Ok I joke a bit with the Nuts example but the net result is the same - would you potentially ruin yourself financially to keep Karly in a job, keep the web site provider from winding us up because we've not kept up our payments to them, have our name dragged through the mud with people on Wways laughing at us because we are a financial mess, and piss off the few members we still have left who loyally follow us?

Ok you might if it only cost you a couple of hundred or so but I bet you certainly wouldn't if it cost you a couple of million out of your pocket instead.

You might not even find the couple of hundred if it was me that left you with Karly on a massive contract, me who had run up a debt with the web provider in the first place - but kept everything sweet for a while by giving you a few quid out of my pocket on the quiet to keep things ticking over - but suddenly I was no longer around anymore to do so?

Why should you step up and do the same if I was no longer there?

The simple truth is that the club costs more to run than the money it gets in - and since Davies died nobody wanted to pick up the shortfall.

So is Anderson really a terrible owner or a sensible bloke who decided he didn't have to bankrupt himself to save a business that he had no affinity to other than as a business opportunity that didn't work out to his advantage as he thought it would?

I wouldn't bankrupt myself if I was in his shoes and I've supported the club all my life.

And you wouldn't either if you found yourself in that position too.

So why do you think Anderson's a shit for not doing something you would not do yourself in the same circumstances?

MartinBWFC wrote:Why do you feel you need to respond to every anti Ken post? why not just put a bag on it and agree to disagree?

Maybe because certain individuals keep demanding that I do exactly that?

MartinBWFC wrote:So there wasn't enough money in the clubs frozen accounts to pay player wages, defend the slimy bastard on that lie Sluffy.

He chose to own us.  I wouldn’t take over a company I knew was in a financial mess, knowing I didn’t have the funds to sort the mess out.

Sluffy wrote:

MartinBWFC wrote:Why do you feel you need to respond to every anti Ken post? why not just put a bag on it and agree to disagree?

Maybe because certain individuals keep demanding that I do exactly that?

MartinBWFC wrote:So there wasn't enough money in the clubs frozen accounts to pay player wages, defend the slimy bastard on that lie Sluffy.

Oh Martin! 

karlypants wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

MartinBWFC wrote:Why do you feel you need to respond to every anti Ken post? why not just put a bag on it and agree to disagree?

Maybe because certain individuals keep demanding that I do exactly that?

MartinBWFC wrote:So there wasn't enough money in the clubs frozen accounts to pay player wages, defend the slimy bastard on that lie Sluffy.

Oh Martin! 

Climb out FFS, you are becoming a proper boring cunt.