OFFICIAL CLUB SOLD TO FV!!!!!

Sluffy wrote:
Bob, is Bob - he's obviously has personal issues in respect of Eddie Davies and Ken Anderson and for reasons only known to himself won't move on from them.

Sorry Sluffy but I have no personal issues in respect of Eddie Davies or Ken Anderson.

Like most folk, I have things that interest me and things that don't. I have likes and I have dislikes.

I like conundrums, challenges and solutions and I like bright people, if they are honest.

I don't dislike people if they aren't clever but I would admit to having a dislike of folk who think they are clever but aren't.

Oh the joy of Nuts.

Are they both at it again Bonce?

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

karlypants wrote:Are they both at it again Bonce?

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

No Karly, I've not said a peep, but I'm about to...

boltonbonce wrote:Oh the joy of Nuts.

Kieran Maguire, David Conn, Marc Iles all seem to think they are smart but they aren't really, are they?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Bob, is Bob - he's obviously has personal issues in respect of Eddie Davies and Ken Anderson and for reasons only known to himself won't move on from them.

Sorry Sluffy but I have no personal issues in respect of Eddie Davies or Ken Anderson.

Like most folk, I have things that interest me and things that don't. I have likes and I have dislikes.

I like conundrums, challenges and solutions and I like bright people, if they are honest.

I don't dislike people if they aren't clever but I would admit to having a dislike of folk who think they are clever but aren't.

You are clearly obsessed, with things that are long gone and everybody but you have moved on - it is there in front of our eyes for all of us to see - even if you can't see it yourself!

You've just saved yourself with your last post as I was going to ban you for your last comment on the quote above which I think we all know was aimed at me.

I'll say again that I am not here to be wummed/trolled or call it whatever you will and my patience with you has now been exhausted.

I simply don't care what you or anyone else thinks of me, it's the internet ffs.

There may indeed be people who 'dislike' me but that's just tough shit for them, it's their (your!) problem, not mine.

And yes, Maguire, Conn and even Iles are smart in their own ways - but they aren't perfect and can and do get things wrong - we all do - even you.

If you've no time for Maguire, Conn, Iles or even me, then just ignore us, don't read what we may say - it isn't a hard thing to do - and much better than carrying bitterness around with you in your heart and stewing over things from years ago.

You need to put your baggage down that you've carried around with you for years and walk away from it.

If you are as clever as you think you are, then why have you been letting the likes of Maguire, Conn et al, eat away at your soul all this time?

Now that really isn't very smart is it?

I watched Panorama last night because I was interested in the McCann case. Its long gone and there's nothing I can do about it but it still interests me.
 
There is something I can do about the falsehoods and prejudices that have surrounded the financial history of BWFC and little by little some of it does seem to be getting through.

Its not about being smart but it is about being able to distinguish wheat from chaff.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I watched Panorama last night because I was interested in the McCann case. Its long gone and there's nothing I can do about it but it still interests me.
 
There is something I can do about the falsehoods and prejudices that have surrounded the financial history of BWFC and little by little some of it does seem to be getting through.

Its not about being smart but it is about being able to distinguish wheat from chaff.

The McCann case was/is about the still unsolved murder of a little child, which is a whole world of difference to what a bunch of ignoramuses' think of Eddie or Ken, neither of whom care a shit about it themselves, Eddie being dead and Ken having heard it all before.

If you are so driven to do this than the way to go about it is to set up your own social media account such as Twitter and become a blogger and 'influencer' and a slayer of myths.

We at Nuts will retweet your initial stuff to give you a start and once people are aware of you, you can get your message out to any out there who might want to hear it.

No doubt you will suffer from abuse from the many, many mentalist out there but if that is the price to you have to pay to get your voice finally heard, then it will be worth it to you.

Personally I think you are flogging a completely dead horse - but it's entirely up to you what to do with your time.

Crikey, this is a forum for views so can’t we just accept everybody’s without making it personal. Like you Sluffy I don’t give a monkeys what anybody thinks of me or my beliefs, they’re what I believe and that’s that. I think having different points of view is essential on a site so bring it on.

I have to fess up but I nicked this from Wandererswallys today.

Whitesince63 wrote:Crikey, this is a forum for views so can’t we just accept everybody’s without making it personal. Like you Sluffy I don’t give a monkeys what anybody thinks of me or my beliefs, they’re what I believe and that’s that. I think having different points of view is essential on a site so bring it on.

Why is Sluffy so keen to censure debate?

Over 17,500 views now and still quite a few loose ends. I can't speak for the tugboats but I like to know where they lead to.

Leave aside the missing £5m, who thinks that half a million quid is not much money? When highly remunerated individuals are vague, its just plain commonsense to think they are being vague for a reason.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:Crikey, this is a forum for views so can’t we just accept everybody’s without making it personal. Like you Sluffy I don’t give a monkeys what anybody thinks of me or my beliefs, they’re what I believe and that’s that. I think having different points of view is essential on a site so bring it on.

Why is Sluffy so keen to censure debate?

Over 17,500 views now and still quite a few loose ends. I can't speak for the tugboats but I like to know where they lead to.

Leave aside the missing £5m, who thinks that half a million quid is not much money? When highly remunerated individuals are vague, its just plain commonsense to think they are being vague for a reason.

Eh???

Censure debate?

I'm the one whose told you how to go about it properly if you did have any genuine intention of telling the world about this.

I'm also the one who has given you the platform on here to tell us what you believed went on and why.

The thing is Bob, you deliberately haven't have you?

You make some wishy washy excuse that it takes too long to tell the tale or some such but week after week, month after month you don't get around to it YET you spend hours and hours, and even more hours, wittering on about bots, or me muddying the water or a thousand and one other digs and putdowns  instead.

So I've basically told you either shit or get off the pot.

If you want to tell us - then tell us.

If you don't then let it drop and move on with your life.

Censure debate you say - well the floors all yours - are you going to take the opportunity or are you going to avoid doing so yet again.

I know what my money is on.

I'm calling your bluff.

Go on then...

Sluffy wrote:

Eh???

Censure debate?

I'm the one whose told you how to go about it properly if you did have any genuine intention of telling the world about this.

I'm also the one who has given you the platform on here to tell us what you believed went on and why.

The thing is Bob, you deliberately haven't have you?

You make some wishy washy excuse that it takes too long to tell the tale or some such but week after week, month after month you don't get around to it YET you spend hours and hours, and even more hours, wittering on about bots, or me muddying the water or a thousand and one other digs and putdowns  instead.

So I've basically told you either shit or get off the pot.

If you want to tell us - then tell us.

If you don't then let it drop and move on with your life.

Censure debate you say - well the floors all yours - are you going to take the opportunity or are you going to avoid doing so yet again.

I know what my money is on.

I'm calling your bluff.

Go on then...

So I've basically told you either shit or get off the pot.

How charmingly put, Sluffy. Have you been taking lessons from the Barnard Castle barsteward?

I don't do wham bam thank you ma'm nor do I indulge in lengthy sermons. I don't think either work very well.

One step at a time is much better. Get folk thinking for themselves. Of course, they don't all have their listening ears or their thinking heads on but I have noticed small changes in some folks thinking.

Get yourself back on the rails is my advice to you, Sluffy. There was a time when, by and large, you seemed to be understanding the narrative when very few others were.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:So I've basically told you either shit or get off the pot.

How charmingly put, Sluffy. Have you been taking lessons from the Barnard Castle barsteward?

I don't do wham bam thank you ma'm nor do I indulge in lengthy sermons. I don't think either work very well.

One step at a time is much better. Get folk thinking for themselves. Of course, they don't all have their listening ears or their thinking heads on but I have noticed small changes in some folks thinking.

Get yourself back on the rails is my advice to you, Sluffy. There was a time when, by and large, you seemed to be understanding the narrative when very few others were.

I knew you wouldn't, you never do Bob.

You talk the talk but seldom actually walk the walk.

I've often dealt with your type throughout my professionally career many before...

Sluffy wrote:Censure debate you say - well the floors all yours - are you going to take the opportunity or are you going to avoid doing so yet again.

I know what my money is on.

I'm calling your bluff.

All you ever do is that...

Sluffy wrote:You make some wishy washy excuse that it takes too long to tell the tale or some such but week after week, month after month you don't get around to telling it YET you spend hours and hours, and even more hours, wittering on about bots, or me muddying the water or a thousand and one other digs and putdowns instead.

I think we are probably on the way to 18,000 views before long, so what have we all learned?

Those who have had their listening ears and thinking heads on should have learned quite a lot but just to recap, when BWFC went into administration in 2019 the amounts owed to Ken Anderson and the Eddie Davies Trust were matters of fact, not opinion. Furthermore there was no reason for the Admins to be in any doubt what the facts were.

Ken Anderson was owed £5m plus any other amounts he had introduced into the business, less any amounts that he had taken out (excepting those amounts that he could reasonably claim were earnings). He said the figure was £7.5m.

The administrators were noticeably vague implying that it was not clear-cut and furthermore KA wasn't entitled to be re-imbursed for the £5m of EDT's money that had been used to repay Blumarble.

If KA had employed Messrs Numpty, Nitwit and Nincompoop to secure his position he might have been forced to appeal to the Court against this decision by the Admins but he hadn't. He had actually used competent lawyers who had done a competent job. 

They had not just secured the £5m, they had secured everything else too. This is interesting because it is something that must have been agreed before ED died and must have had a significant bearing on the circumstances that led to this new agreement between the two of them in the late summer of 2018. 

A quick look at Eddie's will has proved that he had very little in his own name when he died. What was in Sue's name or in the Trust? We can take a look at that later but that's enough for today. I don't want to overburden the tugboats and I have other fish to fry.

Another quick recap. BWFC fans were informed in March 2016 that the club had been acquired by the Sports Shield consortium and SS had come up with £7.5m to help save the club. This nonsense seems to have mainly emanated from the combined wisdom of two founder members of FIBS, Messrs Firth and Iles. A case of the blind leading the blind if there ever was one.

In fact the Sports Shield consortium had a combined share capital of £2 only. The rest of the arrangement was debt or would-be debt. The Blumarble £5m, has been dealt with extensively before but what about the other £2.5m?


It has long been suspected that when Ken Anderson lent money to BWFC, it was always Eddie's money. Whatever the exact arrangement was, it was plainly never intended to be made public but the Admins statement lends considerable weight to that suspicion or belief. Significantly though, none of this money was secured until Eddie agreed to cough up another £5m to repay Blumarble.

This helps explain a lot of what transpired including why the £2.5m facility was used sparingly until  secured as part of the Blumarble arrangement with Eddie.

By the summer of 2018 KA had, almost miraculously, succeeded in getting the club back into the Championship and secured another season. But he hadn't found a buyer, had to find £5m to repay Blumarble and had insufficient funds to pay the players or long-outstanding creditors.

What was he to do? Throw in the towel, dig himself (and his family) into a huge hole or avoid the hole and buy time. Unsurprisingly he chose the last.

What was Eddie to do? We'll save that for another day.

Its a lovely sunny morning at Bobsworth Towers so I don't intend spending more than a moment or two on Nuts.

But talking of the blind leading the blind, lets just have a quick reminder of the blind, brainless bilge Grauniad readers were treated to on the matter of the Sports Shield takeover.

Remember this was the newspaper that told anyone daft enough to believe it that Eddie Davies was doing nicely out of the £millions of his that were going down the tubes at a rate of knots.

I intend to come back to that later because the account isn't finished, but in the meantime enjoy.

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

Another share issue has been notified to Companies House today:
336,832 A Ordinary shares at £6.6798 per share.
I make that £2.25m but who have they been issued to?

Its Deano's birthday today so what's the special friend of the ST, the Beeno and UNIBOL up to these days?

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

The dastardly Ken reckoned Deano took BWFC for £1.5m. Was he right? 

This is what the Beeno had to say about it when Iles interviewed the great man in September 2020.

Zilch is the answer if you can't be bothered reading it.

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

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Another share issue has been notified to Companies House today:
336,832 A Ordinary shares at £6.6798 per share.
I make that £2.25m but who have they been issued to?

Thanks for the heads up, Bob.

Wonder what the money is earmarked for?

Running costs

January Transfer budget

Start on the Reebok development

Other...

PS, I note some new B shares were issued as well - reward for Evatt and/or Hart perhaps?