OFFICIAL CLUB SOLD TO FV!!!!!

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. 

Sluffy.

Has Ken done anything illegal - we both agree no, and it’s not what we’re debating - so drop the sneering and don’t attempt to patronise me with claims I don’t accept reality, it’s written in plain English for you multiple times.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Sluffy.

Has Ken done anything illegal - we both agree no, and it’s not what we’re debating - so drop the sneering and don’t attempt to patronise me with claims I don’t accept reality, it’s written in plain English for you multiple times.

Well debating the reality of the situation is most certainly what I've been posting for the last three years and continue to post it now on Wanderers Ways because of people seemingly being in denial of it on here.

Whether Ken is moral or immoral in how he's run his Company (or even how he is as a person) and whether people love him or hate him are completely incidental to changing anything.

The rules he plays by and which he is held to account are legal ones and it is those by how he is judged by those empowered to do something about it.

It's as simple as that.

I get people are pissed off with him - so what, do you think he will change his behaviour because of it? No he won't.

That's why there's a clash between those can't accept that he isn't in some way punished for his behaviour.

He can't be punished, he can do what he likes within the law - we all can - it's when he breaks the law that something can happen.

He hasn't broken any laws - you say so yourself, so what is more is there to say?

He's probably a cunt morally and probably not a cunt legally - that's was what I said originally which started this your most recent argument for argument sake - and we've now come back full circle.

We all know what you are doing.

Thank god for that. Thank you.

Sluffy wrote:We all know what you are doing.

Having a differing viewpoint to yourself?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:We all know what you are doing.

Having a differing viewpoint to yourself?

Exactly. Had a scan of WW just now Sluffy, and you seem to be having eerily similar conversations over there where you dismiss anyone with a differing view as a WUM. Funny that.

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


[ltr]BREAKING: Businessman Laurence Bassini has, this afternoon, obtained an injunction in Manchester High Court preventing the sale of Bolton Wanderers.

He is alleging breach of contract by owner Ken Anderson, with whom he had a written agreement to buy the club.[/ltr]


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

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

Ergh this guy

Sounds about right.....next is the league canceling our season. 
If FV is prevented from the take over...say tied up in court for a month or two...then nobody gets paid and can't play anymore games until proof of funds etc. etc. etc.
And the hits keep on coming

Is it April Fool's  day?