Beware the Ides of March

Bob's OK with me. Knows his stuff when it comes to the Wanderers. I'd rather ban KP for his musical taste.

This isn't about the general content of his posts, it's about the constant insinuation that Bolton fans are too thick to understand what's going on at the club.

If this was anyone else you'd be having a word.

If any other new poster came on here making the same comments you'd have banned them within a week.

boltonbonce wrote:Bob's OK with me. Knows his stuff when it comes to the Wanderers. I'd rather ban KP for his musical taste.

Man up Bonce.

Last night you were asking if he was a giver.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:Bob's OK with me. Knows his stuff when it comes to the Wanderers. I'd rather ban KP for his musical taste.

Man up Bonce.

Last night you were asking if he was a giver.

You had pictures, I only had sound. I still don't know.

boltonbonce wrote:I'm sure it's a wonderful subject Bob, but, like baseball, I don't understand it. And it's not a subject that you can grasp with a few searches on google, so I tend to let those who seem to know more about it try to enlighten me, hard though that is sometimes.
Rammy, late of this site, was very good at explaining, and informing us during the trials and tribulations with Anderson, and did so I might add, without making us feel like seven year olds.
To be honest, I thank God that only yourself and Sluffy post about this stuff, because if the rest of us were up to speed on it, all hell would break loose.
My slippers wouldn't get a look in.

God its not that difficult. If you were in business in the first half of the ninteenth century you and your family were wholly at risk of  everything you owned if the business failed.

But its not been like that for 170 years. A business stands on its own feet not on the feet of the shareholders, their wives or their children if its a limited company. The debts of the company are the debts of the company.

Iles tried, with great success, to persuade all and sundry that the debts of Bolton Wanderers were the debts of Ken Anderson.

And when Dale Vince, taking a million quid a year from a taxpayer subsidised business without paying income tax on it, threatened to put BWFC into liquidation, that was alright because he made the threat to Ken Anderson.

What's up with you people?

Natasha Whittam wrote:This isn't about the general content of his posts, it's about the constant insinuation that Bolton fans are too thick to understand what's going on at the club.

If this was anyone else you'd be having a word.

If any other new poster came on here making the same comments you'd have banned them within a week.

No I wouldn't, I've been saying much the same myself for the last three years.

Company finance is neither an easy area to understand or a popular one to get involved in but it's certainly an exceptionally interesting one and that's why those who know what they are doing can become incredibly wealthy from it.

People have chosen not to listen to me about it on here and have got on my back about it so much so that there was little point me posting about it on here at one time.  

I'm pragmatic enough to know that although I was proven right in much of what I had been saying, simply by the apparent complete lack of sanctions against Anderson following the in depth scrutiny of the books by the Administrator, that I would achieve nothing by crowing about it and was more than happy to move on and look to what the new owners might be up to (I still haven't the foggiest on that unfortunately).

Bob can and has spoken for himself above.

As I've said already if what he or I says on the matter you find boring, then simply don't read it.

Problem solved.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Iles tried, with great success, to persuade all and sundry that the debts of Bolton Wanderers were the debts of Ken Anderson.

Need to post some evidence of this. Certainly not something I ever remember reading and it’s not something any on here ever believed/posted about.

Sluffy wrote:No I wouldn't, I've been saying much the same myself for the last three years.

Company finance is neither an easy area to understand or a popular one to get involved in but it's certainly an exceptionally interesting one and that's why those who know what they are doing can become incredibly wealthy from it.

People have chosen not to listen to me about it on here and have got on my back about it so much so that there was little point me posting about it on here at one time.  

I'm pragmatic enough to know that although I was proven right in much of what I had been saying, simply by the apparent complete lack of sanctions against Anderson following the in depth scrutiny of the books by the Administrator, that I would achieve nothing by crowing about it and was more than happy to move on and look to what the new owners might be up to (I still haven't the foggiest on that unfortunately).

Bob can and has spoken for himself above.

As I've said already if what he or I says on the matter you find boring, then simply don't read it.

Problem solved.

Again, completely avoiding the question and wittering on about you being right again.

I don't have a problem with what he's saying, what I do have a problem with is the insinuation that Bolton fans are thick because they don't spend their lives posting about things that happened yonks ago.

You're completely blinkered when it comes to Bob.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Iles tried, with great success, to persuade all and sundry that the debts of Bolton Wanderers were the debts of Ken Anderson.

As TROY says, please provide evidence of this. Shouldn't be difficult for a smart chap like yourself.

It's all happening in Madrid.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Iles tried, with great success, to persuade all and sundry that the debts of Bolton Wanderers were the debts of Ken Anderson.

As TROY says, please provide evidence of this. Shouldn't be difficult for a smart chap like yourself.

Here you go -

He's still saying it now!

Of course we now know that something did give. Anderson effectively withdrew his funding and failed to pay the players’ wages from February onward as effort to sell the club solvent amounted to nothing.

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

That says he stopped funding the players wages. Not that he personally was legally obliged to?

T.R.O.Y wrote:That says he stopped funding the players wages. Not that he personally was legally obliged to?

Why did Iles mention it at all then?

Why didn't Iles simply say the club had become insolvent at this point - which it had?

Remember Iles article is twelve months on from the events that he was describing and AFTER the long process of Administration had taken place.

Don't you think that the majority of people reading this who don't know that Anderson was not legally obliged to pay the wages, should have been doing and from his own pocket?

Wheater for one certainly did at the time - he said so in his interview with Micheala Wain (The Apprentice).

What do you mean why mention it? How else do you explain to readers why the players stopped getting paid?

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you mean why mention it? How else do you explain to readers why the players stopped getting paid?

Are you for real - that is the whole point that is being made!

The CLUB pays the wages NOT Anderson.

Iles states ANDERSON WITHDREW HIS funding for the players wages.

Anderson was never responsible for the wages - the CLUB was!

The players stopped getting paid because the CLUB ran out of money and NOT because Anderson withdrew HIS FUNDING of them.

The clear implication being that the players (and club employees) weren't being paid because Anderson had decided not to pay them anymore even though he had personal wealth to do so.

Iles states a fact, while Anderson plugged the gap there was enough money in the pot to pay the wages. When he stopped doing that, there wasn’t. 

Unless I’m missing something? Not sure what you’re getting riled up about.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Iles states a fact, while Anderson plugged the gap there was enough money in the pot to pay the wages. When he stopped doing that, there wasn’t. 

Unless I’m missing something? Not sure what you’re getting riled up about.

He wasn't paying the wages though - how simpler can I make it?

He NEVER paid the players wages.

The CLUB paid the wages - ALWAYS.

The players were footballing CREDITORS to the CLUB (not Anderson) and have all been paid in full following the sale to FV.

Anderson NEVER owed the players anything for unpaid wages - and if he had it would have been him personally the players would have been taking court action against to get their money.

I'll say it again - Anderson was NEVER paying the wages - the CLUB was.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp - yet Iles clearly hasn't yet understood it, nor it seems you, up to now at least.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you mean why mention it? How else do you explain to readers why the players stopped getting paid?

Are you for real - that is the whole point that is being made!

The CLUB pays the wages NOT Anderson.

Iles states ANDERSON WITHDREW HIS funding for the players wages.

Anderson was never responsible for the wages - the CLUB was!

The players stopped getting paid because the CLUB ran out of money and NOT because Anderson withdrew HIS FUNDING of them.

The clear implication being that the players (and club employees) weren't being paid because Anderson had decided not to pay them anymore even though he had personal wealth to do so.

I'm afraid I despair of it all, Sluffy. These people are not interested in the truth or the facts but only interested in suppressing it and making any feeble excuse they can think of for their conduct.

I hope it will change but I doubt it will. Its gone too far, way too far and there seems to be a collective mendacity every bit as contagious as corona virus.