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

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

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

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.

I did it on purpose to see if Sluffy bites 

We need to get the post count up somehow!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.