Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers News » Bury owner: The way EFL treated us, compared to Bolton, is unbelievable

Bury owner: The way EFL treated us, compared to Bolton, is unbelievable

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Bury Football Club owner Steve Dale is preparing to launch a legal fight with the EFL, claiming his club were treated disproportionately to Bolton Wanderers during their fight to stay in existence.

The Shakers were expelled from the league at the end of last August with the EFL claiming Dale had not shown adequate proof of funds for the 2019/20 season.

On the same day, Wanderers’ future hung in the balance as Football Ventures looked to complete their own deal, and the club was issued with a 14-day notice of expulsion.

Appeals to reinstate Bury failed, while FV managed to get their takeover across the line to prevent Bolton going into liquidation.

Dale now claims in an interview with The Sun newspaper that he has appointed a QC to lead a legal claim for damages against the league, which will cost him £250,000.

“We should never have been thrown out,” he said. “The way they treated us, compared to Bolton, is unbelievable.

"I felt the whole time the EFL were against us while they bent over backwards to help Bolton, a former Premier League team.

“When I was trying to rescue the club from the debts run up by Stewart Day, I never realised that not only was I fighting against the creditors but also the EFL.

“I’ve got a QC working on it right now. The case against the EFL will show the real truth what happened to Bury FC.”

Back in August, acting EFL chair Debbie Jevans was challenged on the differences between Bolton and Bury’s situation, at the stage both clubs seemingly had willing buyers, but claimed that they were incomparable.

“The two situations were very different because Bury are owned by an individual whereas Bolton are being run by administrators,” she said.

“We have continued to ask Steve Dale for the financial information that we requested but I stress, what we are asking of him is not different to what we would ask of any other club.

“Bolton came to us with a lot of proof that there was a purchaser ready to complete but we accept there have been some complexities around that – Laurence Bassini going to court, for example. That has delayed things and it is frustrating.

“I want to see that done, now. I really do.”

Source

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Steve Dale makes Ken Anderson almost look like a good owner.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Norpig wrote:Steve Dale makes Ken Anderson almost look like a good owner.

FFS! Have these last few years taught you nothing??????

You don't mention that name on here anymore. Now we're going to get a War & Peace about how great Ken was.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I did it on purpose to see if Sluffy bites  Laughing

We need to get the post count up somehow!

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Norpig wrote:I did it on purpose to see if Sluffy bites  Laughing

We need to get the post count up somehow!
You're forgetting that we lack the intelligence to make an informed decision on these matters. Wink

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:I did it on purpose to see if Sluffy bites  Laughing

We need to get the post count up somehow!

I didn't bite because I'm getting sick of it now in all honesty.

All I've ever tried to do really is help people, believe it or not!

I've tried to explain how things work rather than how people 'think' things work both in respect of companies (think Ken Anderson) and government (think how the government has to best manage the situation from what they have to hand and not what people 'think' they ought to have had) - but people still believe what they want.

Most will always believe Anderson was a bad owner and the government are crap despite having no experience, knowledge, or even understanding of how to run a business or how to govern/manage finite resources and unlimited expectations from the public and political and media 'scrutinisers'.

Sometimes businesses and governments find themselves in a bad position through circumstance not always of their own making or choosing.

In a perfect world, BWFC (the business) should have had another owner like Eddie prepared to put in £200m of his own money to keep the club afloat and the government should have had unlimited amounts of PPE's and testing facilities in stores or on call but in the real world stuff like that doesn't happen.

Anderson did a very good job to keep an insolvent company going as long as he did and similarly the governments stopped the NHS being overwhelmed and the vast majority of the people of our country safe (being the prime objective of both of them) BUT at the same time they could only do so by failing a minority - creditors of the business and aged in care homes.

Was it wrong for both to do so under the conditions they had?  

If so what other choice would people rather they did and still have a solvent club and a functioning HNS and a control of the virus in general given the same circumstances?

A perfect world is one thing, reality is something quite different altogether.

People can't seem to grasp that and most probably never will.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
All we need now is your sidekick Ten Bob to agree with you and the KA fan club is back up to its full membership of 2.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Norpig wrote:All we need now is your sidekick Ten Bob to agree with you and the KA fan club is back up to its full membership of 2.
I'm missing the daily updates on Chester Barnes. I was quite warming to Bob, then he left us.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:All we need now is your sidekick Ten Bob to agree with you and the KA fan club is back up to its full membership of 2.

I think he's given up posting on here as he felt he was wasting his time - I don't blame him I'm getting the same way myself.

In the end you can only lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

If you want to carry on believing Anderson was crap/raped and pillaged the club/a thief/ or whatever it is you do think of him then carry on - it doesn't make you right though.

Bob and I have explained how businesses work in accordance with Company Law, if you don't want to accept that, then that's up to you.

I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
No but you'll keeping posting war and peace on what is essentially just another point of view or opinion.

People don't come on here to be lectured on the finer points of company law and patronised, they come to express their opinion on BWFC whether its right or wrong or whether you agree or not.

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and they are usually full of shit.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:No but you'll keeping posting war and peace on what is essentially just another point of view or opinion.

People don't come on here to be lectured on the finer points of company law and patronised, they come to express their opinion on BWFC whether its right or wrong or whether you agree or not.

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and they are usually full of shit.

If I started to pontificate, without any previous knowledge whatsoever, about drug procurement in hospitals, then that would simply showcase my ignorance of what I'm saying to you and anyone else with professional knowledge of the subject matter and would therefore would definitely be in accordance with how you've defined the word "opinion", that you've describe so earthily above.

Maybe with your many professional knowledge in such things and being the sort of person who try's to be helpful to others, you might wish to inform and educate me to some extent to why I was so wide of the mark, and talking such bollocks, by giving your 'informed' "opinion" in what I had been saying previously up to that point.

If I was then to completely ignore your "opinion", being based on all your many years of training, knowledge and professional experience in the subject and still incessantly continue to state my 'opinion' to be the correct one (after all that's what all the others on social media are saying too) - and hence imply that you clearly didn't know your arse from your elbow about the subject, what would be your view of me then?

Probably the same as I have of you, no doubt.

That's my opinion and apparently I have the right to it as well.

Have a nice day.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I don't dislike you Sluffy, i don't even know you but you come across as being patronising and unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match yours, which for someone who owns a forum is crazy.

You may have more knowledge of the business world than most on here and definitely more than me but again that doesn't mean you know exactly what has happened in the past with KA and administration, Its all your interpretation of what's been put into the public domain.

I have my views on KA and you have yours and we will never agree so lets just leave it there.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:I don't dislike you Sluffy, i don't even know you but you come across as being patronising and unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match yours, which for someone who owns a forum is crazy.

You may have more knowledge of the business world than most on here and definitely more than me but again that doesn't mean you know exactly what has happened in the past with KA and administration, Its all your interpretation of what's been put into the public domain.

I have my views on KA and you have yours and we will never agree so lets just leave it there.

Before I do leave it there, I would refer you to the fact that legally required Administrators reports giving all the true financial information of the company as they have found it is there for ALL to see in the public domain - not just me and Ten Bob.

They are furthermore legally required to examine in detail the company to see what has brought about Administration and to report on anything they find that is untoward for recover of any misappropriated money and/or legal prosecution and potentially imprisonment thereof.

If you know how to read the reports and figures ANYONE can see for themselves that what many thought/believed/was told/what everyone on social media was saying, simply was not true.

It's not me and Bob having an "opinion" about this, or putting our 'interpretation' on this, it's there in black and white for ALL to see.

Granted if you aren't familiar with such stuff it can be difficult/very difficult to understand but some of us do know our way around these things, some of us having spent our entire working careers doing so.

If you or anyone else doesn't wish to believe Bob or I, then that's your choice but we do actually know what we've been talking about and considering we've been telling everybody this, in the face of countless abuse, for years before even the Administrators forensically went through the books to establish what if any fraud had been committed, then the fact the Anderson has been charged with absolutely nothing, even though its more or less a full season after he left, seems to suggest one might say that we did indeed know our 'onions' and are not the cranks/weirdo's as some have tried so hard to paint us as.

It doesn't benefit me in anyway by being right on the internet, all I did was to try to help others on Nuts (latterly Wways) to understand things a bit more clearly, that's all.

I don't think I'll bother next time, it's simply not been worth it.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

T.R.O.Y.


David Lee
David Lee
The thing you have always chosen to completely ignore is that the vast majority of fans and posters have never accused Anderson of acting illegally. 

Being a dick, and breaking the law are mutually exclusive you can be one without the other. How many words have you wasted arguing that he wasn't breaking the law? Nobody is arguing.

Fans don't like him because Anderson is the type of employer nobody wants to work for, using any trick in the book to avoid paying what he owes. And his actions caused turmoil for the club off the pitch which clearly had an effect on it.

You spent three years arguing against the above, claiming we should be grateful for his work at the club and blaming any other living being other than the man himself (even a professor of finance who dared to criticise KA if memory serves). 

You have not been proved correct on anything since this happened, most people are just happy to move on from the same never ending arguments you seem to revel in. 

So as Norpig says, drop it and move on.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Fwiw that Professor of finance (I presume we are talking about the same one) publicly apologised on here to me when I proved him wrong on what he had posted - something about the hotel assets iirc.  

My background is of a Company Secretary, the Professor's being an accountant, ones about how businesses run the other about numbers, there is overlap between the two but both are specialisms in their own right and view things from different perspectives and disciplines but both adhere to Company Law.

In simple terms Anderson kept the club going for as long as he could when it had run out of money to pay the bills but people incorrectly thought he was obliged to pay the bills out of his own money ("after all he owned the club...") and was 'crook' for not doing so.

I simply explained that simply was not the case.

If Anderson could have sold the club before the shit inevitably hit the fan, it would have been the best result, as the new owners would have taken on the existing debt and there would have been no points penalty and embargo.

If Anderson had put the club into Administration as soon as the club no longer could pay it's way, the results would have been much the same as what did happen, namely points deduction and embargo, and all footballers and football creditors being paid in full.  The biggest losers for him not doing this immediately being HMRC.

The reason why he didn't do this at that time was that he was still be funded by the company's largest creditor Moonshift/Fildraw (or in simple terms Eddie Davies) whose position would have been made considerably worse than if a buyer was found.

Fildraw/EDT have now little hope of seeing their money in years as FV certainly couldn't settle their secured debt on the company assets and that's why the EDT debt now has had to be taken on board of their company as a secured debtor, which in turn is facing a massive loss and facing potentially Administration due to the current and open ended ban on football.

But for the untimely death of Eddie maybe things would have worked out for everyone but as soon as he died and the financial safety net was removed it was simply a race against time to see if Anderson could keep the club going long enough to sell it, which he did by kicking the payment of creditors as far down the line as he could do legally.

If people can't or won't understand/accept that, then it's up to them.

If people think it's only my 'opinion' or I'm just 'interpreting' things to suit my case then let them.

I do know what I'm talking about.

But saying that I don't believe anything I read on social media without proof, so I've also no problem anyone not believing anything I say either.  I would however have hoped that it would at least make a few of you think things aren't as black and white as you thought, or more likely read on social media.

To be frank I've had enough trying to help and explain stuff to people on here who simply aren't interested or even willing to listen.  You've made up your minds anyway and nothing I or anyone else can say will ever make you change them.  

I'll leave you all to it then.

T.R.O.Y.


David Lee
David Lee
I was talking about Kieran Maguire, one of many you slagged off on here as not knowing what they're talking about.

As for this: 

@Sluffy wrote:If Anderson could have sold the club before the shit inevitably hit the fan, it would have been the best result, as the new owners would have taken on the existing debt and there would have been no points penalty and embargo.

If Anderson had put the club into Administration as soon as the club no longer could pay it's way, the results would have been much the same as what did happen, namely points deduction and embargo, and all footballers and football creditors being paid in full.  The biggest losers for him not doing this immediately being HMRC.

The reason why he didn't do this at that time was that he was still be funded by the company's largest creditor Moonshift/Fildraw (or in simple terms Eddie Davies) whose position would have been made considerably worse than if a buyer was found.

Fildraw/EDT have now little hope of seeing their money in years as FV certainly couldn't settle their secured debt on the company assets and that's why the EDT debt now has had to be taken on board of their company as a secured debtor, which in turn is facing a massive loss and facing potentially Administration due to the current and open ended ban on football.

But for the untimely death of Eddie maybe things would have worked out for everyone but as soon as he died and the financial safety net was removed it was simply a race against time to see if Anderson could keep the club going long enough to sell it, which he did by kicking the payment of creditors as far down the line as he could do legally.

You're not saying anything remotely controversial here, nobody is disagreeing with it, nobody is arguing you're wrong - it is the exact same understanding of the situation that everybody else has. 

I've told you why fans didn't like him, and won't believe he did a good job. If you can't understand that then that says more about you than anyone else.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:I was talking about Kieran Maguire, one of many you slagged off on here as not knowing what they're talking about.

You're not saying anything remotely controversial here, nobody is disagreeing with it, nobody is arguing you're wrong - it is the exact same understanding of the situation that everybody else has. 

I've told you why fans didn't like him, and won't believe he did a good job. If you can't understand that then that says more about you than anyone else.

Maguire is certainly not infallible and clearly likes the public attention.

Iirc he did state incorrectly the amount of money on call FV had set in place to fund the running of the company.  He also wrote a blog which if you took the first letter of every paragraph spelt out 'Ken Anderson is a cunt', apart from being childish shows how impartial his reporting really was.

As for me, what I can understand is what Anderson did and his reasons for doing it, what others 'understand' is that he was just being a "cunt" for the sake of it.

That certainly isn't the "exact same understanding of the situation that everyone else has".

Yes, it probably does say more about me than anyone else.

I don't have a problem with that.

T.R.O.Y.


David Lee
David Lee
It's actually really simple, football fans want to see their club do well. The turmoil Anderson brought not only prohibited that, but it also made the club a laughing stock.

We can debate his motivations all day, but none of us know for certain (including you). 

Let's face it he came to the club with a record of being a slimy toerag, and behaved like one throughout his time with us - remember the club updates he used to take pops at whoever he was having a row with at that point? Trumpesque behaviour. 

It's little wonder many have kept such an opinion of him.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:It's actually really simple, football fans want to see their club do well. The turmoil Anderson brought not only prohibited that, but it also made the club a laughing stock.

FV have created no turmoil off the pitch and are well beloved of fans, so far at least, but their record on it is in according to Iles, the third WORST in the clubs entire history.

The other two came under Eddie's reign!

I would offer no argument that both Eddie and Sharron are much more benevolent to the club (what I mean by that is that they are subsidising the club out of their own personal money) than Anderson however perceived 'good owners' are far from immune to having historically disastrous seasons, Eddie's caused by stopping putting his hand in his pocket after running up such an immense debt on the club and Sharon having to deal with it's aftermath.

People should have the sense to realise by now that if there was problems on the pitch both in the seasons BEFORE and immediately AFTER Anderson's tenure, then there be bound to be some during his time in charge.

Oh no though, it's because Anderson was a cunt.


@T.R.O.Y. wrote:We can debate his motivations all day, but none of us know for certain (including you). 

They say actions speak louder than words don't they?

Well the Administrators have clearly seen what 'actions' Anderson took during his time here by forensically going through the books and interviewing (under oath to I believe as they are acting for the court) the key individuals involved during his time as owner.

Well, no 'actions' taken against him so far - although many did believe he was plundering the club and said so often enough on here and social media in general.

As for his motivation it isn't hard to fathom, it's what most business people do - aim to make a profit through the business, for themselves.

I've no doubt Ken walked away with more money that he started with but that's the nature of the game.  What he doesn't appear to have done though is plunder the club to do so - which what many said he was doing.

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Let's face it he came to the club with a record of being a slimy toerag, and behaved like one throughout his time with us - remember the club updates he used to take pops at whoever he was having a row with at that point? Trumpesque behaviour. 

It's little wonder many have kept such an opinion of him.

Clearly you've never heard of Confirmation Bias then!

Whilst looking it up you should also read up on Believe Perseverance and Illusory Correlation too, as you along with the vast majority have done/still doing all three.


I do know that I'm just wasting my breath once again - see Believe Perseverance.

T.R.O.Y.


David Lee
David Lee
@Sluffy wrote:
Clearly you've never heard of Confirmation Bias then!

Whilst looking it up you should also read up on Believe Perseverance and Illusory Correlation too, as you along with the vast majority have done/still doing all three.


I do know that I'm just wasting my breath once again - see Believe Perseverance.

Ah back to being the King of condescension then! Knew you couldn't keep it up Wink

Sluffy you don't seem to have any grasp of what my belief is on the matter judging by the tripe you reply with. It's almost as if you don't read posts.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
Clearly you've never heard of Confirmation Bias then!

Whilst looking it up you should also read up on Believe Perseverance and Illusory Correlation too, as you along with the vast majority have done/still doing all three.


I do know that I'm just wasting my breath once again - see Believe Perseverance.

Ah back to being the King of condescension then! Knew you couldn't keep it up Wink

Sluffy you don't seem to have any grasp of what my belief is on the matter judging by the tripe you reply with. It's almost as if you don't read posts.

No, I give you the respect of reading all your posts, even though you have stated you don't read mine.

I'm apparently all sorts to different people on here apparently, you say I'm condescending, Norpig tells me I'm patronising, etc, etc.  

As I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances in real life, a number I've known from school days, I know I don't have any socialising problems and as a teacher or life mentor that I have been asked to carry out in the past, know that my interpersonal skills have been sought out to help others, so I don't care what label someone I don't know on the internet wishes to tag me with.  

I don't have to know what your belief on the matter is.

You posted that Anderson was a 'slimy toerag'  before he got here and is it any wonder that he behaved accordingly since he arrived too.

I merely pointed out that if you knew about Confirmation Bias you wouldn't have posted that up as a point of validity and the fact you did showed that you clearly wasn't aware of it at all or you did know and you were just trolling.

You either showed your ignorance of the bias along with most everybody else, or are just playing games and seeking a reaction.

Moving on, as I keep saying if people had wider knowledge they could make better decisions.

I'm professionally trained and have decades of experience in how companies run and have a working knowledge of both company accounts and human behaviour (both elements of being a Company Secretary) and consequently I can see a different side to Anderson's reign than most who don't have such training and knowledge.

I've merely tried to enlighten people but clearly they don't wish to be.

He's a cunt who fucked off with all the money is clearly the level they want to remain at.

Fine, I'll leave them to there ignorance then, they seem to be happy with it after all.

T.R.O.Y.


David Lee
David Lee
Perfectly possible to be patronising and condescending, two very similar personality types.

I said Anderson had a record of being a slimy toe rag - I don’t know him well enough to know if he is - how would you describe his business history?

Who are you referring to when you say ‘they’, who’s being ‘ignorant’?

Your posts never seem to relate to what you’re being asked, it feels as if you’re venting at an audience who aren’t on this site to me. Which begs the question of why you’re choosing to do it on here.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
'You posted that Anderson was a 'slimy toerag'  before he got here and is it any wonder that he behaved accordingly since he arrived too.'


Well Sluffy, at least you agree he behaved like a slimy toerag. cheers

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I warned Norpig what would happen when he posted about Ken.

But rather than delete his post he settled back and wore out his fishing rod watching ALF porn.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@boltonbonce wrote:'You posted that Anderson was a 'slimy toerag'  before he got here and is it any wonder that he behaved accordingly since he arrived too.'


Well Sluffy, at least you agree he behaved like a slimy toerag. cheers

Sorry Bonce, I didn't.

I simply paraphrased back to TROY what he had posted in the first place.

Owners don't buy businesses to be liked, they do so to make money.

I didn't start this forum (with two others) because I wanted to be liked (just as well really) I did so hoping it be a bit of fun that people would join in with.

With Brexit and Anderson brining nutjobs to the fore, that didn't last for long and now football as had to be put on the backburner all we've got left to talk about is coronavirus which is grim in itself - as it happens I'm just watching an ambulance having been parked for half an hour or more across the street at a neighbours house, hope everything is as ok as it can be for them.

Anderson didn't think, 'I know I'll buy BWFC, hoping to turn it around and sell it on for a profit, not get caught with my pants down by putting my personal money in the club whilst I know it can't pay me back, but will cut as much fat away and hold on to the cash flow as long as I'm able to, until I find a buyer, and all the while everyone will love me for it, even though people are already queueing up calling me a toerag and I've not actually even bought the club yet!'.

Norpig wasn't fishing, he's made his view on Anderson abundantly clear many times and in doing so ignored everything I've tried to explain on how and why things happened as they did.

As I can't be seen to be right in what I say, even though I've been saying them virtually alone for the last three years whilst everybody else thought differently, it must just be that it was some sort of a lucky guess/it was just my opinion/I just interpreted things to suit my point of view, etc, etc, that things have more or less turned out as I said they would namely Anderson didn't rape the club to line his pockets nor sell off (non existing) assets either and did what he had to, to keep the club going as long as he could knowing it to be insolvent and running on fumes.

Not that it makes much difference to me, I don't win a prize or anything for being right on the internet, I merely did it to help others better understand.

I've learned my lesson though I won't be doing anything like that again.

Anyway the ambulance has left and they haven't been in their 'suits' or taken anybody away.

Thank God for that one small mercy if nothing else.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Perhaps we should put Ken to bed. Or not. Smile

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
For the record Sluffy i haven't ignored your explanations, i just see things differently. You go on about him not having to pay for things out of his own pocket which is legally correct but morally stinks.

 Also he did buy the club hoping for a quick profit but he got caught out. Believe it or not i had no issue with that when he first came in but the way he ran the club when the shit hit the fan left a lot to be desired.

Football is not like any other business and shouldn't be compared to how a normal business runs. there's too much emotion and history wrapped up in clubs not to mention the supporters.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:For the record Sluffy i haven't ignored your explanations, i just see things differently. You go on about him not having to pay for things out of his own pocket which is legally correct but morally stinks.

 Also he did buy the club hoping for a quick profit but he got caught out. Believe it or not i had no issue with that when he first came in but the way he ran the club when the shit hit the fan left a lot to be desired.

Football is not like any other business and shouldn't be compared to how a normal business runs. there's too much emotion and history wrapped up in clubs not to mention the supporters.

No mate, that's exactly the point you and nearly everybody else goes wrong - it IS like every other business.

It has to trade in the same way as everyone one else does, it has to 'earn' more than it 'spends' otherwise it goes bust.

It's as simple as that.

'History' doesn't count for anything, Thomas Cook the travel agents were founded in 1841 - thirty years before BWFC - but when it couldn't pay it's bills it went bust - nobody cared about it's history when they couldn't make any money from it.

'Emotions' don't count for anything in the business world either, some people loved 'Woolworth's', 'Preston's of Bolton' and even 'Bury Football Club' but it counted for nothing when they could no longer pay their way.

As for 'supporters' that is just another name for 'customers' and if there simply aren't enough customers wanting to buy the product to enable the business (club) to cover its costs, then it simply will go bust.

You probably think I'm cold hearted, maybe I am, but that's how it works - and that's why you and others simply don't 'get it'.

Make no mistake that if FV can't cover their costs then sooner or later when they reach the limit they've set themselves, they will pull out to - and who wants to buy football clubs right now?

Football IS a business.

Businesses need to earn more than they spend.

Football has lived in a bubble for sometime now but for clubs outside the Premier League the bubble is bursting and clubs (players wages) can't be covered from what the clubs earn each year.

If this virus prevents clubs earning vital money from gate receipts (there's already talk of crowds not being allowed into grounds until at least next year) and the EFL can't find someway of 'giving' (not loaning) money to these clubs to keep trading, then some clubs WILL go out of business, irrespective of their history, or how emotional their supporters are.

Players 'could' help a great deal by taking a pay cut but despite all the 'glitz and spin' that the PR companies are doing on their behalf, the vast majority won't do that.

Even some of the big clubs in the Premier League are starting to get worried.

That's why they are so desperate to get the league going again just to get the Sky money flowing again (or rather not to have to refund what they've already received up front from them) - they certainly aren't doing it just to please their fans!

Football IS a business.

People need to understand and accept that otherwise they are just in denial of what it is all about and how it actually works.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I can see your point Sluffy but as sad as Thomas Cook going out of business was it wouldn't be mourned like a club like ours or Bury folding, football is about emotion and loyalty (from a fans perspective anyway).

I know that i would have been extremely gutted if we had gone out of business like Bury as i've invested so much of the last 33 years in following them.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum