Administration and beyond!

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:You may have noticed that Michael James seems to be keeping his head down. Can't say I blame him but how pleased will he be at smiley Sharon and enchanting Emma cosying up to Dale Vince and Terrence Rigby?
Makes me imagine Caroline Flint turning up to Jeremy Corbyn's leaving do but somehow I can't see her putting her arm round him.

It makes me wonder whether there are two separate plans going on here, one to develop the hotel/land at Horwich and the other to perhaps relocate a community based club back in Bolton, or at least significantly lower footballing aspirations in line with financial sustainability primarily funded from attendance and local support.

Maybe James is ok with the latter and PBP got it's eye on the former.

It would make sense of the £40m credit line that has been set up - it's certainly not there to buy footballing success in anything like the short term - and crowds (and thus revenue) will be diminishing the longer the club is not being successful - football fans are notoriously fickle as you know.

That seems to be the only rational explanation I can come up with for a clearly cash limited buyer (FVWL) who had the hotel (and not the club!) central to its business plan, who seems to have £40m backing (why? can't just be on the off chance we get to the Premier League in the next few years!), who are deliberately targeting everything to be Bolton centric (Manager and trainer, Senior Admin staff, friendly overtures with the highly questionable ST, etc, etc) and now possibly looking at footballing models of clubs with low turnovers and no footballing aspirations to speak of.

That's my line of thinking anyway.

Have they really got a £40m credit line? If they have (or anything like it), why are the unsecured creditors still having to wait interminably for 35P in the pound and ED's widow even longer than them?

As for the chairman and CEO of BWFC going to Forest Green Rovers to get advice on how to run a football club, I'm afraid words fail me.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Have they really got a £40m credit line? If they have (or anything like it), why are the unsecured creditors still having to wait interminably for 35P in the pound and ED's widow even longer than them?

As for the chairman and CEO of BWFC going to Forest Green Rovers to get advice on how to run a football club, I'm afraid words fail me.

As far as I understand it Sharon Brittan and someone named Nick Luckock have each put a £20m secured charge against Football Ventures (Whites) Ltd, as 'loans' -

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

No one seems to know exactly who Luckock is but one bit of trivia no one else seems to have picked up on is that they seem to be neighbours to each other, both living on Church Road, Penn, High Wickham, HP10 8NX (see their respective addresses shown on the documentation for the secured charges).

The only Nick Luckock of any note I can find by doing a simple Google search on his name is this person -

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

If it is one and the same person he is a partner at HgCapital and if you look what Hg do, then this is the first line of Wikipeadia's (yes I know) description of the company -

"Hg is a private equity firm targeting middle-market buyouts primarily in Europe".

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

It looks as though if it is the same person that it is he that has fronted that half of the investment and not Hg directly, although that's not to say it isn't Hg's money behind him.

I find it incredible to believe that two people unconnected to the club previously are willing to put on the line a large chunk of their personal wealth on a mere punt to turn a financial basket case of a football club around just on the remote off chance that we somehow miraculously become a fixture in the PL in a few years time - so they must have another plan to obtain a return on their money - and that to me can only come from the development of the land the club owns (and sits on?!) and that in turn prompts me to think that maybe relocating the club away from where it is now, to perhaps a scaled down capacity venue in or around Bolton is part of the master plan.

A scaled down new venue and the redevelopment of the Reebok and land would I suggest seem a more reasonable plan for this £40m 'loan' than potentially taking a fourth tier football club next season through all the divisions to the PL, where £10+million transfers (and the salaries that come with them) are common at Championship level, let alone in the PL itself!

Obviously I have no idea what the master plan is, or indeed if I've even identified the correct Nick Luckock but I can't think of a better explanation to fit the few facts we know as to why two people want to put £40m into a football club they had no previous connection with, when there were significantly better clubs available to buy/invest in, if football was there only financial interest.

Sluffy I think your final three paragraphs are the best summary of what is really going on that I have seen. People with no interest in football only put money into a club if they think they can profit from it.

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Have they really got a £40m credit line? If they have (or anything like it), why are the unsecured creditors still having to wait interminably for 35P in the pound and ED's widow even longer than them?

As for the chairman and CEO of BWFC going to Forest Green Rovers to get advice on how to run a football club, I'm afraid words fail me.

As far as I understand it Sharon Brittan and someone named Nick Luckock have each put a £20m secured charge against Football Ventures (Whites) Ltd, as 'loans' -

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

No one seems to know exactly who Luckock is but one bit of trivia no one else seems to have picked up on is that they seem to be neighbours to each other, both living on Church Road, Penn, High Wickham, HP10 8NX (see their respective addresses shown on the documentation for the secured charges).

The only Nick Luckock of any note I can find by doing a simple Google search on his name is this person -

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

If it is one and the same person he is a partner at HgCapital and if you look what Hg do, then this is the first line of Wikipeadia's (yes I know) description of the company -

"Hg is a private equity firm targeting middle-market buyouts primarily in Europe".

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

It looks as though if it is the same person that it is he that has fronted that half of the investment and not Hg directly, although that's not to say it isn't Hg's money behind him.

I find it incredible to believe that two people unconnected to the club previously are willing to put on the line a large chunk of their personal wealth on a mere punt to turn a financial basket case of a football club around just on the remote off chance that we somehow miraculously become a fixture in the PL in a few years time - so they must have another plan to obtain a return on their money - and that to me can only come from the development of the land the club owns (and sits on?!) and that in turn prompts me to think that maybe relocating the club away from where it is now, to perhaps a scaled down capacity venue in or around Bolton is part of the master plan.

A scaled down new venue and the redevelopment of the Reebok and land would I suggest seem a more reasonable plan for this £40m 'loan' than potentially taking a fourth tier football club next season through all the divisions to the PL, where £10+million transfers (and the salaries that come with them) are common at Championship level, let alone in the PL itself!

Obviously I have no idea what the master plan is, or indeed if I've even identified the correct Nick Luckock but I can't think of a better explanation to fit the few facts we know as to why two people want to put £40m into a football club they had no previous connection with, when there were significantly better clubs available to buy/invest in, if football was there only financial interest.

I agree that it makes little sense on the face of it.

Brittan and Luckock have registered charges each in respect of £20m 4% loan notes issued (or to be issued?) by FVWL.

Neither of them have significant control. i.e. 25% of the company shares.

In fact no-one seems to own 25% or more of the company and the paid up share capital is a meagre £1.75m.

I suspect we have five shareholders each with a 20% share or thereabouts.

Most of BWFC's debts seem to remain unpaid with money being provided by FVWL on a slow-drip basis with the assets used as security being the ones paid for by Eddie Davies. His widow, it seems, might have to wait three years to get back the last £5m Eddie stumped up just before he died, if she ever does get it back?

What's the plan? They aren't really telling us are they and the 'esteemed' Marc Iles isn't going to ferret it out either but 4% is nowhere near enough a sufficient return on capital if there's a significant risk of not getting some of your capital back.

xmiles wrote:Sluffy I think your final three paragraphs are the best summary of what is really going on that I have seen. People with no interest in football only put money into a club if they think they can profit from it.

Thanks but it's probably more accurate to call my little musings as surmises rather than summary, as I've no idea how true or accurate they really are.

Seems Wways ownership obviously didn't like my conjecture on the subject though as I seemed to have been banned from there without any warning a couple of weeks back.  

C'est la vie.

It does seem to me though that football alone is not the primary reason that Sharon and Mr Luckock, et al, are seemingly willing to risk millions of their wealth to save little old Bolton Wanderers.

All will be revealed in the fullness of time no doubt, whilst our esteemed journalist bothers himself with constantly promoting his own utterly dreadful podcasts rather than enquires into how the club proposes to fund itself (whilst still making a trading loss) for the forseeable future.

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:Sluffy I think your final three paragraphs are the best summary of what is really going on that I have seen. People with no interest in football only put money into a club if they think they can profit from it.

Thanks but it's probably more accurate to call my little musings as surmises rather than summary, as I've no idea how true or accurate they really are.

Seems Wways ownership obviously didn't like my conjecture on the subject though as I seemed to have been banned from there without any warning a couple of weeks back.  

C'est la vie.

It does seem to me though that football alone is not the primary reason that Sharon and Mr Luckock, et al, are seemingly willing to risk millions of their wealth to save little old Bolton Wanderers.

All will be revealed in the fullness of time no doubt, whilst our esteemed journalist bothers himself with constantly promoting his own utterly dreadful podcasts rather than enquires into how the club proposes to fund itself (whilst still making a trading loss) for the forseeable future.

I got banned too, about the same time. I think it was because Wways mods prefer folk who've never quite grown out of their spotty-faced, potty-mouthed adolescence.

Some of them keep taking a sneaky look on the 'Who funded the building of the Reebok' thread.
Getting on for nearly 3,400 views now but they are all too frit to make any intelligent comment for fear of being banished like the two of us.

I like the idea of a smaller ground somewhere in Bolton.

We'd be a lot better off with a smaller stadium with a capacity of 10-12,000.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I like the idea of a smaller ground somewhere in Bolton.

We'd be a lot better off with a smaller stadium with a capacity of 10-12,000.

Manchester road?

Natasha Whittam wrote:I like the idea of a smaller ground somewhere in Bolton.

We'd be a lot better off with a smaller stadium with a capacity of 10-12,000.

Lets just chuck Chorley out of their ground and take it over

Norpig wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I like the idea of a smaller ground somewhere in Bolton.

We'd be a lot better off with a smaller stadium with a capacity of 10-12,000.

Lets just chuck Chorley out of their ground and take it over

But that would make it even further away.

Horwich is a pain as it is.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:Sluffy I think your final three paragraphs are the best summary of what is really going on that I have seen. People with no interest in football only put money into a club if they think they can profit from it.

Thanks but it's probably more accurate to call my little musings as surmises rather than summary, as I've no idea how true or accurate they really are.

Seems Wways ownership obviously didn't like my conjecture on the subject though as I seemed to have been banned from there without any warning a couple of weeks back.  

C'est la vie.

It does seem to me though that football alone is not the primary reason that Sharon and Mr Luckock, et al, are seemingly willing to risk millions of their wealth to save little old Bolton Wanderers.

All will be revealed in the fullness of time no doubt, whilst our esteemed journalist bothers himself with constantly promoting his own utterly dreadful podcasts rather than enquires into how the club proposes to fund itself (whilst still making a trading loss) for the forseeable future.

I got banned too, about the same time. I think it was because Wways mods prefer folk who've never quite grown out of their spotty-faced, potty-mouthed adolescence.

Some of them keep taking a sneaky look on the 'Who paid for the building of the Reebok' thread.
Getting on for nearly 3,400 views now but they are all too frit to make any intelligent comment for fear of being banished like the two of us.

To be fair to Wways and its readership, it is the biggest BWFC forum around, and in the age of social media where individual centric communication (Twitter, WhatsApp, and whatever else there is) now dominates over group talk such as Facebook and forums, then I don't think that is ever going to change.  

So it's really a bit of a Hobson's choice for those still preferring to visit a place where some form of debate can be read.  Whatever its shortcomings are it is the busiest site and thus more likely to carry the latest news of the club we all support.

Unfortunately though the majority of the regular posters on there seem to have long associations with each other and tend to think and act alike - birds of a feather comes to mind.

If you like their 'ways' then all well and good but if you don't, then I suggest that most people visiting the site look beyond the abuse to find the few gems that are on there to read.

It's no coincidence that the most popular thread ever on there was the protracted sale of the club and the star of the thread was 'Howard'.

Most of the people who followed the thread as well as the likes of Iles and Nixon had little to no knowledge of Accountancy, Mergers and Acquisitions, Insolvency, Administration, Company Law, etc, etc, etc, and had no idea what was going on and believed the likes of Howard, Iles, Nixon implicitly - even though one or two of us knew not all that was being told to us was factual.

Seems however that even though a few of us tried to make sense of what was going on based on the facts we could gleam and pass this on to everyone else, that the 'local community for local people' preferred to deride and abuse us than consider a different narrative than that was being fed to us - misguidedly or not!

Ok, it probably is not very interesting and quite difficult to follow some/much of the stuff we were trying to explain, for many people but I'm sure some people did appreciate that some of us were trying to lift the curtain up as to what was more likely happening than what was generally believed to be the case.

At the end of the day it is just a forum, people act and behave on it as they want/are allowed to be.  Clearly some of us aren't birds of a particular feather and thus have been culled.

I've not lost any sleep over it and certainly don't miss the threats and abuse for simply trying to explain to those who might be interested in what I understood, based on my years of relevant professional experience and qualifications, was happening/likely to be happening.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I like the idea of a smaller ground somewhere in Bolton.

We'd be a lot better off with a smaller stadium with a capacity of 10-12,000.

DaleVince wants a 'sustainable' 5,000 stadium made of wood. Do you think anyone might remind him of how 56 Bradford City supporters lost their lives in the Valley Parade fire?

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:Sluffy I think your final three paragraphs are the best summary of what is really going on that I have seen. People with no interest in football only put money into a club if they think they can profit from it.

Thanks but it's probably more accurate to call my little musings as surmises rather than summary, as I've no idea how true or accurate they really are.

Seems Wways ownership obviously didn't like my conjecture on the subject though as I seemed to have been banned from there without any warning a couple of weeks back.  

C'est la vie.

It does seem to me though that football alone is not the primary reason that Sharon and Mr Luckock, et al, are seemingly willing to risk millions of their wealth to save little old Bolton Wanderers.

All will be revealed in the fullness of time no doubt, whilst our esteemed journalist bothers himself with constantly promoting his own utterly dreadful podcasts rather than enquires into how the club proposes to fund itself (whilst still making a trading loss) for the forseeable future.

I got banned too, about the same time. I think it was because Wways mods prefer folk who've never quite grown out of their spotty-faced, potty-mouthed adolescence.

Some of them keep taking a sneaky look on the 'Who paid for the building of the Reebok' thread.
Getting on for nearly 3,400 views now but they are all too frit to make any intelligent comment for fear of being banished like the two of us.

To be fair to Wways and its readership, it is the biggest BWFC forum around, and in the age of social media where individual centric communication (Twitter, WhatsApp, and whatever else there is) now dominates over group talk such as Facebook and forums, then I don't think that is ever going to change.  

So it's really a bit of a Hobson's choice for those still preferring to visit a place where some form of debate can be read.  Whatever its shortcomings are it is the busiest site and thus more likely to carry the latest news of the club we all support.

Unfortunately though the majority of the regular posters on there seem to have long associations with each other and tend to think and act alike - birds of a feather comes to mind.

If you like their 'ways' then all well and good but if you don't, then I suggest that most people visiting the site look beyond the abuse to find the few gems that are on there to read.

It's no coincidence that the most popular thread ever on there was the protracted sale of the club and the star of the thread was 'Howard'.

Most of the people who followed the thread as well as the likes of Iles and Nixon had little to no knowledge of Accountancy, Mergers and Acquisitions, Insolvency, Administration, Company Law, etc, etc, etc, and had no idea what was going on and believed the likes of Howard, Iles, Nixon implicitly - even though one or two of us knew not all that was being told to us was factual.

Seems however that even though a few of us tried to make sense of what was going on based on the facts we could gleam and pass this on to everyone else, that the 'local community for local people' preferred to deride and abuse us than consider a different narrative than that was being fed to us - misguidedly or not!

Ok, it probably is not very interesting and quite difficult to follow some/much of the stuff we were trying to explain, for many people but I'm sure some people did appreciate that some of us were trying to lift the curtain up as to what was more likely happening than what was generally believed to be the case.

At the end of the day it is just a forum, people act and behave on it as they want/are allowed to be.  Clearly some of us aren't birds of a particular feather and thus have been culled.

I've not lost any sleep over it and certainly don't miss the threats and abuse for simply trying to explain to those who might be interested in what I understood, based on my years of relevant professional experience and qualifications, was happening/likely to be happening.

To be fair to WW, they just behave like schoolyard bullies followed by a flock most of whom seem to have as much capacity to think for themselves as the average sheep. Then there's the Bolton News.
Actually Howard was one of the more interesting contributors on WW even if he/she had an axe to grind and was a tad on the unprofessional side.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:To be fair to WW, they just behave like schoolyard bullies followed by a flock most of whom seem to have as much capacity to think for themselves as the average sheep. Then there's the Bolton News.
Actually Howard was one of the more interesting contributors on WW even if he/she had an axe to grind and was a tad on the unprofessional side.

Yes I think that's fair comment.

It's always been the way that people tend to want to 'belong' and most are content to follow than to lead.

'Norms' and 'conformity' are established by those that become the leaders of groups, mostly from being 'stronger' than the others, either physically, manipulatively or intellectually in some way or other.

It seems that Wways has its roots in the old 'boot boys' of the early seventies continuing into the eighties and called themselves the unimaginative 'Ant Hill Mob' presumably from the children's cartoon TV programme Wackey Races?

Accordingly group dynamics formed around macho aggressiveness, which even after all these years manifests itself in abuse and confrontation on the forum, particularly to those who they identify as not being one of their ilk.

The same sort of behaviour is mirrored in this social media generation where people still want to 'belong', 'follow' and behave in such a manner that engenders themselves to those who they wish to associate themselves with - even though they often know nothing about them than their internet 'persona' that may or may not even be genuine!

I've lived through the years of 'aggro' quite successfully without succumbing to feel the need to prove myself to anyone to be part of the 'gang' and similarly I don't see any benefit in being a keyboard warrior on the internet to 'prove' myself to anyone.

I was taught that I was born with a brain in my head and to use it and also to treat people with the same respect as I would wish to be treated by them.  

Those two lessons alone have served me well over the years.

If people want to follow with out thinking, abuse without caring - then more fool them.

I rather be a decent man in real life than be concerned in the slightest how I'm viewed by people on social media who don't know me - and never will.

I'm not in the slightest bothered than I'm not considered to be wanted in the Wways 'brotherhood' and not stupid enough to rely blindly on Iles reports and tweets as to what is actually going on at the club.

Howard was an entertaining internet character - no more no less - he/she was informative and gave an interesting and at times enlightening narrative - at a crucial time in our clubs history.  

I thank them for it.

I didn't believe every thing that was said but then again I don't believe everything I'm told down the pub either.

At the end of the day football is only a game.

I've lost no sleep over being banned, am constantly amazed that anyone thinks Iles is any good at his job and enjoyed as a bit of internet theatre Howards interlude.

If others feel differently then good for them.

It's not real life.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:To be fair to WW, they just behave like schoolyard bullies followed by a flock most of whom seem to have as much capacity to think for themselves as the average sheep. Then there's the Bolton News.
Actually Howard was one of the more interesting contributors on WW even if he/she had an axe to grind and was a tad on the unprofessional side.

Yes I think that's fair comment.

It's always been the way that people tend to want to 'belong' and most are content to follow than to lead.

'Norms' and 'conformity' are established by those that become the leaders of groups, mostly from being 'stronger' than the others, either physically, manipulatively or intellectually in some way or other.

It seems that Wways has its roots in the old 'boot boys' of the early seventies continuing into the eighties and called themselves the unimaginative 'Ant Hill Mob' presumably from the children's cartoon TV programme Wackey Races?

Accordingly group dynamics formed around macho aggressiveness, which even after all these years manifests itself in abuse and confrontation on the forum, particularly to those who they identify as not being one of their ilk.

The same sort of behaviour is mirrored in this social media generation where people still want to 'belong', 'follow' and behave in such a manner that engenders themselves to those who they wish to associate themselves with - even though they often know nothing about them than their internet 'persona' that may or may not even be genuine!

I've lived through the years of 'aggro' quite successfully without succumbing to feel the need to prove myself to anyone to be part of the 'gang' and similarly I don't see any benefit in being a keyboard warrior on the internet to 'prove' myself to anyone.

I was taught that I was born with a brain in my head and to use it and also to treat people with the same respect as I would wish to be treated by them.  

Those two lessons alone have served me well over the years.

If people want to follow with out thinking, abuse without caring - then more fool them.

I rather be a decent man in real life than be concerned in the slightest how I'm viewed by people on social media who don't know me - and never will.

I'm not in the slightest bothered than I'm not considered to be wanted in the Wways 'brotherhood' and not stupid enough to rely blindly on Iles reports and tweets as to what is actually going on at the club.

Howard was an entertaining internet character - no more no less - he/she was informative and gave an interesting and at times enlightening narrative - at a crucial time in our clubs history.  

I thank them for it.

I didn't believe every thing that was said but then again I don't believe everything I'm told down the pub either.

At the end of the day football is only a game.

I've lost no sleep over being banned, am constantly amazed that anyone thinks Iles is any good at his job and enjoyed as a bit of internet theatre Howards interlude.

If others feel differently then good for them.

It's not real life.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Spot on, Sluffy, its a fantasy world and an escape from real life.

I really don't know what FV's plans are but it was noticeable that Emma B, at the recent Lancaster Whites meeting, emphasised the lack of maintenance on the Reebok whilst appearing less enthusiastic about comments concerning the quality of the stadium and infastructure. Its easy to overthink and overreact but there was a distinct, albeit brief, chink in the veneer when she was asked who paid for the Reebok stadium.

She didn't know and neither did Keith Hill.

Merry Christmas to you, your family and everyone at Nuts

P.S. Mrs Bobsworth thinks that Unibol sounds like disinfectant you put down the khazi so I'm sticking with the Reebok.

Unibol does sound like toilet disinfection!  

Hope you and your family enjoyed Christmas day (and fingers crossed our result today - currently nil all).

The latest on the Admin bill as per your reference on another thread earlier on -

Bolton say they are working with administrators to resolve debts

WANDERERS say they hope to resolve a payment owed to administrators David Rubin and Partners by the end of the year.
Fees have not yet been settled for the process, which began in mid-May, with a six-month report revealing earlier this month that around £1.2million will eventually be paid out to administrators and their advisors.
Reports claiming that the debt could signal wider issues have been firmly played down.
The Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company remains in administration, although all key assets including the ‘golden share’ which ensured membership of the EFL have been transferred to Football Ventures Whites Limited.

“It is widely known that the takeover of the club was protracted and that there were a number of complications right up until completion,” a club statement read.

“David Rubin and Partners worked under difficult circumstances and were ultimately instrumental in the survival of the football club.

“FVWL and the joint administrators are working together to finalise the administration process and remain in discussions regarding the associated fees which we hope will be resolved this year."

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

Sluffy wrote:Unibol does sound like toilet disinfection!  

Hope you and your family enjoyed Christmas day (and fingers crossed our result today - currently nil all).

The latest on the Admin bill as per your reference on another thread earlier on -

Bolton say they are working with administrators to resolve debts

WANDERERS say they hope to resolve a payment owed to administrators David Rubin and Partners by the end of the year.
Fees have not yet been settled for the process, which began in mid-May, with a six-month report revealing earlier this month that around £1.2million will eventually be paid out to administrators and their advisors.
Reports claiming that the debt could signal wider issues have been firmly played down.
The Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company remains in administration, although all key assets including the ‘golden share’ which ensured membership of the EFL have been transferred to Football Ventures Whites Limited.

“It is widely known that the takeover of the club was protracted and that there were a number of complications right up until completion,” a club statement read.

“David Rubin and Partners worked under difficult circumstances and were ultimately instrumental in the survival of the football club.

“FVWL and the joint administrators are working together to finalise the administration process and remain in discussions regarding the associated fees which we hope will be resolved this year."

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

Worked really hard for their £1.2m, did they? Go on I'll believe them.
I wonder if their task would have been easier if they'd made a better job of the statement of affairs.

Meanwhile over on WW, the love-in with Sharon and Emma shows no sign of abating whilst the view count on 'who funded the Reebok' continues to rise.

No more comments though. You could be forgiven for thinking it was a State secret affecting national security.

Apparently there is a ten year plan!

For anyone who wants to listen to Hills utter claptrap about it click on about 3 minutes into the interview.

Even the interviewer didn't even bother with a follow up question about it!

Anyway -

Sluffy wrote:Apparently there is a ten year plan!

For anyone who wants to listen to Hills utter claptrap about it click on about 3 minutes into the interview.

Even the interviewer didn't even bother with a follow up question about it!

Anyway -

TBF from this position a 10 year plan is needed if we're ever going to get back to the top table.
I might not still be around to see it come to fruition, but I understand the need for it.
Thanks Ken.

Sluffy wrote:Apparently there is a ten year plan!

For anyone who wants to listen to Hills utter claptrap about it click on about 3 minutes into the interview.

Even the interviewer didn't even bother with a follow up question about it!

Anyway -

Layering on Bullshit factor 50, if you ask me. Don't just watch the lips, follow the eyes. Its always a dead giveaway.

I expect the 'consortium' have some sort of objective in mind but what's the risk? Most of their 'investment' seems to be secured on assets paid for by Eddie, or to put it another way, Sue Davies.

Meanwhile another c.150 views on WW 'who paid for the Reebok' but NO COMMENTS since WW decided that you and I were persona non grata.

Having looked again at the FV file, I think that there are six shareholders not five. None of them own as much 25% of the total shares issued.