You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » OFFICIAL - Bolton up for sale for £25 million

OFFICIAL - Bolton up for sale for £25 million

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 6]

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
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.

Sluffy

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

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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?

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
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.

finlaymcdanger

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

Sluffy

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

Sluffy

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

Rolling Eyes

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:So there wasn't enough money in the clubs frozen accounts to pay player wages, defend the slimy bastard on that lie Sluffy.

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
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.

karlypants

karlypants
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: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?

Rolling Eyes

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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!  :facepalm: Very Happy

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[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: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?

Rolling Eyes

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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!  :facepalm: Very Happy
Climb out FFS, you are becoming a proper boring cunt.

karlypants

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

Rolling Eyes

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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!  :facepalm: Very Happy
Climb out FFS, you are becoming a proper boring cunt.
Jesus Christ Martin! Was there really any need for that?  Shocked

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
He has a point KP.

gloswhite

gloswhite
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
No he hasn't.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:No he hasn't.

Oh yes he has.

Sluffy

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

He chose to buy a club with Dean Holdsworth, who would bring £5m to put into it and keep it running for a season whilst he took action to financially turn it around as quickly as he could, sell it for a profit, split the profit and move on.  At least the was the plan.

Instead Holdsworth simply borrowed £5m from the club itself (he borrowed using the clubs assets as security), which meant Anderson had to make £5m on selling the club just to break even - and if he did that (and say made a £1m profit on top) then why, when he's done all the hard/dirty work to turn the club financially around and make it successful enough to earn a further £6m on top, should he just get a paltry £500k for it (£6m less £5m to repay the loan, leaving £1m profit of which Holdsworth is due half)?  Why should Holdsworth get anything really?

Turning a business around doesn't always mean you throw money at it, in the case of BWFC it was more to do with massively slashing expenditure (players on stupidly high wages, ridiculous negotiated contracts like obviously the Heathcote one, and renegotiating with existing creditors, deferred payments, etc, etc) and also increase income (all the begging pleas to buy shirts, attend games, etc, and find new income streams such as the concerts and rugby games).

The plan turned to shit though right from the start when Holdsworth brought nothing to the table and instead of having £5m of working capital where things have been done in partnership it turned instead into Anderson doing all the work paying back the first £5 million to the club to keep the asset in was secured against, then having to pay over half of any profit to Holdsworth for doing fuck all.

Does that seem fair to you?

He obviously couldn't sell the club with Holdsworth still as his partner taking half of whatever profit he would eventually get, so had to a ) get shut of Holdsworth, b ) clear the £5m loan Holdsworth lumbered on the club and c ) keep the club solvent - all whilst not wanting to fund it out of his own pocket.

It took the first season to buy out Holdsworth, the second start to deal with turning the club around and this season to sell it.

Eddie Davies kept the club going from his back pocket during this time but once he died it was only a matter of which would eventually happen first - someone buying the club, or the club running out of money.

We hear stories of buyers not wanting to deal with Anderson - they may even be true - but there is always the other side to the story too.

Buyers would want a good deal for themselves, obviously, they would know enough that the club was in financial difficulties and looking for a quick deal, so no doubt they look to buy cheap - maybe he just told them to fuck off - he knows there are enough people who would lose more than him if the club was allowed to fail - so he uses that to his own advantage.

Nothing personal, just business as they say.

And that's where we find ourselves today.

Did Ken plan three years ago to be in this position when he took on the club?  

I very much doubt it.

I suspect he's only here because the partnership with Holdsworth fell apart from day one.

Would we be in the shit if Eddie hadn't died, I doubt it again.  It's clear with him loaning against Anderson's ownership of the club that some sort of exit strategy for Anderson to move on from the club was being laid and that no doubt Eddie would have put his hand in his pocket again.

Anderson has been here through circumstances more than deliberate intent as far as I can see.  

No doubt he's done really well for himself whilst being here but I doubt very much he set off to be here for three years and he certainly didn't have any intent of throwing his personal money at the club.

The strangest thing I find in all of this is how Holdsworth, who took out the toxic BM loan on club assets in the first place and who walked off with something like £1m from the club as seemingly got away without any criticism whatsoever from nearly everyone - and that's because the likes of Iles and the ST have gone out of their way to protect his involvement in all of this and lay all the blame on Anderson instead.

Just goes to show how much the social media 'influencers' like Iles have over  the gullible and the naive who believe every word they are told rather than thinking for themselves.

Far easier following the crowd and taking everything as gospel I suppose?

gloswhite

gloswhite
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:No he hasn't.

Oh yes he has.
Waahh !! Sad

Cajunboy

Cajunboy
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
This is all getting very tiresome.

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
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: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.

He chose to buy a club with Dean Holdsworth, who would bring £5m to put into it and keep it running for a season whilst he took action to financially turn it around as quickly as he could, sell it for a profit, split the profit and move on.  At least the was the plan.

Instead Holdsworth simply borrowed £5m from the club itself (he borrowed using the clubs assets as security), which meant Anderson had to make £5m on selling the club just to break even - and if he did that (and say made a £1m profit on top) then why, when he's done all the hard/dirty work to turn the club financially around and make it successful enough to earn a further £6m on top, should he just get a paltry £500k for it (£6m less £5m to repay the loan, leaving £1m profit of which Holdsworth is due half)?  Why should Holdsworth get anything really?

Turning a business around doesn't always mean you throw money at it, in the case of BWFC it was more to do with massively slashing expenditure (players on stupidly high wages, ridiculous negotiated contracts like obviously the Heathcote one, and renegotiating with existing creditors, deferred payments, etc, etc) and also increase income (all the begging pleas to buy shirts, attend games, etc, and find new income streams such as the concerts and rugby games).

The plan turned to shit though right from the start when Holdsworth brought nothing to the table and instead of having £5m of working capital where things have been done in partnership it turned instead into Anderson doing all the work paying back the first £5 million to the club to keep the asset in was secured against, then having to pay over half of any profit to Holdsworth for doing fuck all.

Does that seem fair to you?

He obviously couldn't sell the club with Holdsworth still as his partner taking half of whatever profit he would eventually get, so had to a ) get shut of Holdsworth, b ) clear the £5m loan Holdsworth lumbered on the club and c ) keep the club solvent - all whilst not wanting to fund it out of his own pocket.

It took the first season to buy out Holdsworth, the second start to deal with turning the club around and this season to sell it.

Eddie Davies kept the club going from his back pocket during this time but once he died it was only a matter of which would eventually happen first - someone buying the club, or the club running out of money.

We hear stories of buyers not wanting to deal with Anderson - they may even be true - but there is always the other side to the story too.

Buyers would want a good deal for themselves, obviously, they would know enough that the club was in financial difficulties and looking for a quick deal, so no doubt they look to buy cheap - maybe he just told them to fuck off - he knows there are enough people who would lose more than him if the club was allowed to fail - so he uses that to his own advantage.

Nothing personal, just business as they say.

And that's where we find ourselves today.

Did Ken plan three years ago to be in this position when he took on the club?  

I very much doubt it.

I suspect he's only here because the partnership with Holdsworth fell apart from day one.

Would we be in the shit if Eddie hadn't died, I doubt it again.  It's clear with him loaning against Anderson's ownership of the club that some sort of exit strategy for Anderson to move on from the club was being laid and that no doubt Eddie would have put his hand in his pocket again.

Anderson has been here through circumstances more than deliberate intent as far as I can see.  

No doubt he's done really well for himself whilst being here but I doubt very much he set off to be here for three years and he certainly didn't have any intent of throwing his personal money at the club.

The strangest thing I find in all of this is how Holdsworth, who took out the toxic BM loan on club assets in the first place and who walked off with something like £1m from the club as seemingly got away without any criticism whatsoever from nearly everyone - and that's because the likes of Iles and the ST have gone out of their way to protect his involvement in all of this and lay all the blame on Anderson instead.

Just goes to show how much the social media 'influencers' like Iles have over  the gullible and the naive who believe every word they are told rather than thinking for themselves.

Far easier following the crowd and taking everything as gospel I suppose?
Or having our own opinions maybe, which are different to yours 🙄

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Or having our own opinions maybe, which are different to yours 🙄

I don't recall stopping anyone having their own opinion and posting it on here have I?

I'd even go as far as saying that I would think my opinion, which is based on as much knowledge, facts and whatever personal experience I've had that is in someway relevant to what's been going on, is by far the least supported opinion on here (by a long way) in respect of Anderson and his goings on as owner of the club.

If you or anyone else want to believe what someone random person posts on twitter or Facebook, then go ahead.  If you think Iles and the ST are completely free of having any agenda, or are absolutely honest and totally free of any bias, then you believe that.

I you think Holdsworth is the innocent in all this (what exactly did he do for his million other than sign the hotel over to BM for a loan?) and Anderson is the bad guy for something or other (what exactly because no one has actually found anything he's actually done that's broken any law so far?) than carry on doing so.

As far as I'm concerned you are innocent until proven guilty.

Clearly you and most others have judged Anderson to be guilty.

You might be right too.

But what if you hung him based on just what you thought and he turned out to be innocent of all that he was accused of - you know like Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans?

Bit too late then.

I'd rather wait a bit longer and judge how good/bad he was based on the facts.

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I don’t understand, I have never accused him of doing anything illegal.  I’ve said he ran the club poorly, which he has.  Fact. 

Holdsworth also is not the messiah also, he’s a very naughty boy.  

My opinion is based on facts too.

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
I think it needs to be said (again) that Ken never claimed to have the funds to run the club long term by himself. When he came in it was as a partner to Dean Holdsworth and the aim was simply to stabilise the club in the short term before selling it on as a going concern to someone who DID have the resources to take it back up towards the Premier League etc. When Dean and the Sportshield fiasco happened it left Ken in the position of trying to run the club without the necessary wherewithal to do much of anything. Add in the number of players who were still on Prem wages, the bills that were left over from the ED days and Dean walking away with a million quid and Ken was always up against it.

Don't get me wrong, he's made mistakes but for the most part he's also been operating with his back to the wall. I'd also like to point out that a lot of what he said is proving to be true, for example Heathcotes. One of the first things the administrator did was to fire them off and bring all the catering etc in house just as Ken wanted to when he said Heathcotes were charging way too much for their 'services'.

He's been blamed for bidders 'walking away' but the administrator appears to be asking for the same sort of money and under the same conditions Ken wanted with regards to things like proof of funding. I suspect when all is done and dusted and the truth finally comes out certain people are going to realise Ken has done a much better job than he's currently being given credit for.

The truth is that we were in serious trouble from the moment ED decided to pull the plug which just happened to be when the parachute payments ended and ever since then BWFC has been on the back foot. Ken can't be blamed for that, nor in my opinion can he be blamed for the fact several of the 'serious' bids turned out to be from tyre kickers. He might not be perfect, in fact he certainly isn't but I for one think he's much better than some people seem to believe.

Boggersbelief

Boggersbelief
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Ken Andersons aim was always to buy Holdsworth shares, they were never partners...

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I'm yet to be convinced that sluffy & LPP aren't the same person.

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I'm yet to be convinced that sluffy & LPP aren't the same person.
You mean because they talk so much sense?

gloswhite

gloswhite
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I'm yet to be convinced that sluffy & LPP aren't the same person.
You mean because they talk so much sense?
You mean because they talk so much senseSmile

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:You mean because they talk so much sense?

:facepalm:

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
Sorry to disappoint you Nat but we are not the same person. However, some say that sluffy has another job and title that starts with "S" and that it involves driving very expensive cars around an old airfield near Guildford. All we know is he's called ......









sluffy.

Growler


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I don’t understand, I have never accused him of doing anything illegal.  I’ve said he ran the club poorly, which he has.  Fact. 

Holdsworth also is not the messiah also, he’s a very naughty boy.  

My opinion is based on facts too.
 We are the first English club to go into administration for 6 years so Ken certainly wasn't a successful owner.

Some people seem to think he has to be found guilty of stealing money to be considered a poor owner.

For me, relegation to the 3rd Division, administration causing a 12 point deduction, not paying the players and staff wages, and having a home league fixture cancelled make him a  poor owner

bryan458

bryan458
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
He more or less said it in one of his 'note from the chairman' bollocks, 'people were saying mean things about my family so why should I pay anyone' THE c@*T.

Growler


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:He more or less said it in one of his 'note from the chairman' bollocks, 'people were saying mean things about my family so why should I pay anyone' THE c@*T.

Football club ownership isn't the best profession for someone sensitive to criticism

Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

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