OFFICIAL CLUB SOLD TO FV!!!!!

Marc Iles take on why ticket sales suspended.


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

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:He oversaw the expiration of the final contracts we had left from EDT era, hardly takes a business genius to know we weren’t able to pay them again.

My point on ‘his money’ was that he’s taken a bonus out of the club for at least one year, yet seemingly spent Eddie Davies cash otherwise. My question would be what did he do to earn his bonus during such a turbulent period.

He had to carry and fund those wages whilst on third tier income, whilst dealing with all the other financial catastrophise Gartside signed off on.

As far as I recall he claimed a promotion bonus in line with those he paid to players and staff.  Hardly unheard of in the football 'bubble' world.  The anti-Anderson's made a big fuss about it at the time.

Fwiw such a payment was/is legal and it was nearly two seasons later before the club ran out of money, so has/had no influence in anyway on the clubs financial collapse this year.

Yes the question was what he’d done to earn said bonus? Or his son?

I answered the question - he claimed a bonus based on the clubs success for gaining promotion.

It was shown under the auditors report on the accounts - so nothing was hidden or underhanded as such.

That's what happens in the football bubble world.

Lee Anderson would not have received any bonus as he was never an employee, Director or owner of the club.

I’d argue he did nothing deserving of that bonus, players and playing staff would have a contract stipulating the bonuses they get for such achievements before you ask what the difference is.

His responsibility is stability, if the clubs making enough money to pay Ken a bonus great. If we’re losing money and in dire financial trouble, then no don’t pay yourself a bonus - it’s called priorities.

I’m sure you have a different set of morals though.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:He oversaw the expiration of the final contracts we had left from EDT era, hardly takes a business genius to know we weren’t able to pay them again.

My point on ‘his money’ was that he’s taken a bonus out of the club for at least one year, yet seemingly spent Eddie Davies cash otherwise. My question would be what did he do to earn his bonus during such a turbulent period.

He had to carry and fund those wages whilst on third tier income, whilst dealing with all the other financial catastrophise Gartside signed off on.

As far as I recall he claimed a promotion bonus in line with those he paid to players and staff.  Hardly unheard of in the football 'bubble' world.  The anti-Anderson's made a big fuss about it at the time.

Fwiw such a payment was/is legal and it was nearly two seasons later before the club ran out of money, so has/had no influence in anyway on the clubs financial collapse this year.

Yes the question was what he’d done to earn said bonus? Or his son?

I answered the question - he claimed a bonus based on the clubs success for gaining promotion.

It was shown under the auditors report on the accounts - so nothing was hidden or underhanded as such.

That's what happens in the football bubble world.

Lee Anderson would not have received any bonus as he was never an employee, Director or owner of the club.

I’d argue he did nothing deserving of that bonus, players and playing staff would have a contract stipulating the bonuses they get for such achievements before you ask what the difference is.

His responsibility is stability, if the clubs making enough money to pay Ken a bonus great. If we’re losing money and in dire financial trouble, then no don’t pay yourself a bonus - it’s called priorities.

I’m sure you have a different set of morals though.

Companies aren't regulated in accordance to morals they are governed by Company Law.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that Anderson has acted immorally, I wouldn't disagree - but there is nothing stopping him from doing so - and that's the point you continually fail to grasp - I'm beginning to think deliberately so now.

The only sanctions against him are legal ones - has he broken the law - yes or no?

If he's not broken the law there's nothing anyone can do about it.

If you don't like how he runs his business then don't give him your custom and certainly don't work for him.  If you do support his business and you continue to work for him then by your actions you are condoning his business behaviour.

It really is black and white as Norpig suggests that is how I see things anyway.

It really is though.

Being emotional won't change his behaviour, he was here to run a business he owns almost 100% of, and in the hard knock school of real life way.  He's of the same ilk of the Mike Ashley's, the Philip Greens, the Fred Goodwin's of the business world, he isn't here to fund the club/company by pissing away his life savings in it.

Just because you nor anyone else likes him doesn't make him in any way culpable in how he's run his company - the thing that he IS judged on though is if he's brought the company down by his actions - and it appears that he hasn't.

Taking a bonus from two seasons ago (whether you feel he deserved it or not) simply hasn't led to the company collapsing as insolvent nearly two years later.

Until you can finally accept that it is the legality and not the morality of what he has done whilst he owned the club that he is judged and sanctioned on, then I see no point in continuing the discussion any further with you.

I suggest instead you take your issues up with the Administrators of both the club and the hotel and see what they say in reply to your standpoints.

Sluffy, you are bang on with what you write above - I am not arguing with you m, what I’m trying to explain to you why fans are justifiably annoyed and critical of KA and (for the umpteenth time) I’m not suggesting he’s done anything illegal.

Yet again - You can be a cunt without breaking the law, and you can break the law without being a cunt.

Let’s leave it at that, you clearly won’t be look at any other view points on this.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Sluffy, you are bang on with what you write above - I am not arguing with you m, what I’m trying to explain to you why fans are justifiably annoyed and critical of KA and (for the umpteenth time) I’m not suggesting he’s done anything illegal.

Yet again - You can be a cunt without breaking the law, and you can break the law without being a cunt.

Let’s leave it at that, you clearly won’t be look at any other view points on this.

Other view points don't count - they are superfluous in terms of the reality of the situation.

If you don't like the personality/ethics/morality of the owner then don't be a patron his business, alternatively if you feel compelled to patronise the business you are validating the owners behaviour in how he runs it - you simply can't separate the one from the other.

No amount of bitching/crying/abuse about it will change anything.

It is reality that counts in this world not wishful idealism.

And that's what I've been saying for the last three years - and will continue to say.

It's not a question of whether I've supported Ken or not, it has always been about has he actually done anything wrong in the real world of Company Law in how he's run his business.

And the answer seems to be no.

Finally the penny is beginning to drop for some - but never will for others.

My boss was a bastard. I remember him forcing a woman out of her shop in Walkden because he wanted the land. It was horrible.
He broke no laws though, and although the woman wanted to take it to court, her son persuaded her that she couldn't possibly win.
Likewise, from all we can tell, Anderson has broken no laws. However, I prefer to live by my own high standards, rather than the low standards of others.

You’re showing you have no understanding of the emotional side of football. To say the owner and club are inseparable and you cannot support one without supporting the other is so far off the truth it’s unreal.

The fans are the club, not the owner.

And yet again you miss the point - it’s fuck all to do with company law, I’m explaining to you why fans are annoyed a fact you seem desperate to dismiss as ignorance.

boltonbonce wrote:My boss was a bastard. I remember him forcing a woman out of her shop in Walkden because he wanted the land. It was horrible.
He broke no laws though, and although the woman wanted to take it to court, her son persuaded her that she couldn't possibly win.
Likewise, from all we can tell, Anderson has broken no laws. However, I prefer to live by my own high standards, rather than the low standards of others.

Well said Bonce. It’s jot a difficult point to understand.

boltonbonce wrote:My boss was a bastard. I remember him forcing a woman out of her shop in Walkden because he wanted the land. It was horrible.
He broke no laws though, and although the woman wanted to take it to court, her son persuaded her that she couldn't possibly win.
Likewise, from all we can tell, Anderson has broken no laws. However, I prefer to live by my own high standards, rather than the low standards of others.

It's absolutely fine to live to your own standards but it doesn't mean others have to match them - they don't.

Society has determined a set of rules that regulate us, some moral, some legal.

The sanctions you have against those who transgress, in your opinion, of moral issues, are few, you can shun them (or their services) or voice your disapproval of them.

Voicing the disapproval of Anderson has achieved absolutely nothing perhaps apart from getting things off ones chest.

Do you or anyone else think that has helped improve his behaviour or the situation at all?

The sanctions in law alternatively are real and can lead to imprisonment, fines or even bankruptcy.  Whatever people such as Wanderlust has vehemently claimed about him raping and pillaging the club to enrich himself are patently not been found to have happened - because he knows that 'real' sanctions would inevitably be taken against him if he had and was found to have done so.

That's the real world we live in.

If however you want to live in a world where morality is enforced then perhaps we should view how country's such as Saudi Arabia treat their own women and the short lived caliphate of IS treated everyone who did not share their views of how life should be lived.

Is that really an aim we should wish to aspire to?

The simple truth is that Ken is probably a cunt morally but probably not a cunt legally.

As we govern by legality and not morality, then he's done nothing anyone can do anything about.

Learn to live with it and move on.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You’re showing you have no understanding of the emotional side of football. To say the owner and club are inseparable and you cannot support one without supporting the other is so far off the truth it’s unreal.

The fans are the club, not the owner.

And yet again you miss the point - it’s fuck all to do with company law, I’m explaining to you why fans are annoyed a fact you seem desperate to dismiss as ignorance.

Take it up with the Insolvency Court, the two Administrators, Football Ventures even.

Reality is how the club is financially run which is governed by Company Law.

And not how much fans hate the owner.

The fans at Blackpool could not get the Oystens out no matter how hard they tried.

Company Law and the courts did though.

The fans haven't saved BWFC, another company has.

The fans 'representatives' the ST are too busy slagging off the potential new owners about ticket prices before they've even bought the club or held their first home game - even though FV are voluntarily paying for the match to go ahead.

Doesn't that show you that most fans (including yourself no doubt) live in a bubble unrelated to actual reality?

No need to answer.  You're in the bubble looking out so you can't (or won't) seem to grasp what is reality and what is not.

I think we should stop calling Kenocchio a cunt as a cunt is warm and inviting, which is the complete opposite of KA.

Sluffy, I'm not asking anyone to adhere to standards I and others set for ourselves.

All I'm saying is, you look out of your window and see a hard nosed businessman, making sure he gets what he believes is rightfully due to him, and taking every measure within the law to achieve that end.

I see a git.

I'll leave it at that.

I'm hoping Sluffy is just playing devils advocate and doesn't actually believe the tripe he writes about Kenocchio.

Norpig wrote:I think we should stop calling Kenocchio a cunt as a cunt is warm and inviting, which is the complete opposite of KA.

Lady garden Norpig.

Lady garden!!!

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:You’re showing you have no understanding of the emotional side of football. To say the owner and club are inseparable and you cannot support one without supporting the other is so far off the truth it’s unreal.

The fans are the club, not the owner.

And yet again you miss the point - it’s fuck all to do with company law, I’m explaining to you why fans are annoyed a fact you seem desperate to dismiss as ignorance.

Take it up with the Insolvency Court, the two Administrators, Football Ventures even.

Reality is how the club is financially run which is governed by Company Law.

And not how much fans hate the owner.

The fans at Blackpool could not get the Oystens out no matter how hard they tried.

Company Law and the courts did though.

The fans haven't saved BWFC, another company has.

The fans 'representatives' the ST are too busy slagging off the potential new owners about ticket prices before they've even bought the club or held their first home game - even though FV are voluntarily paying for the match to go ahead.

Doesn't that show you that most fans (including yourself no doubt) live in a bubble unrelated to actual reality?

No need to answer.  You're in the bubble looking out so you can't (or won't) seem to grasp what is reality and what is not.

Take what up with the insolvency court? I’m agreeing with you on the legal aspect?

You’re rambling on at me but not replying with anything related to what I’m actually posting, it’s a bizarre way to behave.

And it’s a bizarre way to behave to continually go on at him.

Just leave it now.

karlypants wrote:And it’s a bizarre way to behave to continually go on at him.

Just leave it now.

Piss off Karly, i am done but it’s a two way street we’ve both been trying to get through to each other.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:You’re showing you have no understanding of the emotional side of football. To say the owner and club are inseparable and you cannot support one without supporting the other is so far off the truth it’s unreal.

The fans are the club, not the owner.

And yet again you miss the point - it’s fuck all to do with company law, I’m explaining to you why fans are annoyed a fact you seem desperate to dismiss as ignorance.

Take it up with the Insolvency Court, the two Administrators, Football Ventures even.

Reality is how the club is financially run which is governed by Company Law.

And not how much fans hate the owner.

The fans at Blackpool could not get the Oystens out no matter how hard they tried.

Company Law and the courts did though.

The fans haven't saved BWFC, another company has.

The fans 'representatives' the ST are too busy slagging off the potential new owners about ticket prices before they've even bought the club or held their first home game - even though FV are voluntarily paying for the match to go ahead.

Doesn't that show you that most fans (including yourself no doubt) live in a bubble unrelated to actual reality?

No need to answer.  You're in the bubble looking out so you can't (or won't) seem to grasp what is reality and what is not.

Take what up with the insolvency court? I’m agreeing with you on the legal aspect?

You’re rambling on at me but not replying with anything related to what I’m actually posting, it’s a bizarre way to behave.

What is bizarre is not accepting reality.

Or rather understanding it and accepting it fully but just wanting to carry on arguing ad nauseously on here.

I'd thought we had moved on from that?

Clearly not though.

karlypants wrote:And it’s a bizarre way to behave to continually go on at him.

Just leave it now.

Dear me, you really do need to climb out KP, it's becoming embarrassing. Sluffy doesn't need you to back him up all the time.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

karlypants wrote:And it’s a bizarre way to behave to continually go on at him.

Just leave it now.

Dear me, you really do need to climb out KP, it's becoming embarrassing. Sluffy doesn't need you to back him up all the time.

But I don’t back him up all the time.