Wigan in Administration

boltonbonce wrote:

Pleased you like the Beano, Boncey. Don't ever confuse it with the Beeno.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:It was always an uphill battle for both of us to get Nuts regular posters to even think about the facts or the truth wasn't it, Sluffy, living, as they were and are in a state of ingrained indignance at the very idea of anyone challenging entrenched notions based on nothing other than ignorance and prejudice?

Maybe one or two might have learned something they didn't know but no more than a little learning, I expect.

1. I suspect I'm more qualified to analyse what happened than you and Sluffy put together.
2. The financial statements produced more questions than answers so the only conclusion possible was that a considerable amount of supporting information would be required in order to make a feasible interpretation.
3. In the absence of the requisite supporting information there is nothing to grasp - other than we can all surmise what actually happened to our heart's content - and on this site we ultimately agreed to disagree as a result.
4. For the benefit of those who didn't spend their careers in the world of business analysis and consultancy and are interested in what really happened it is highly inappropriate and misleading to peddle personal theories as if they were facts.

If you are to learn anything, let it be that people will put forward their own theories and apply their own prejudices regardless in the absence of facts and that is absolutely fine on a forum providing the poster makes it clear that it's an opinion, suspicion or concern - which you consistently fail to do.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:It was always an uphill battle for both of us to get Nuts regular posters to even think about the facts or the truth wasn't it, Sluffy, living, as they were and are in a state of ingrained indignance at the very idea of anyone challenging entrenched notions based on nothing other than ignorance and prejudice?

Maybe one or two might have learned something they didn't know but no more than a little learning, I expect.

You've taught me nothing Bob, sorry to disappoint.

Where will you go after Nuts?

Calamity James is particularly good this week. They don't do enough giveaways these days. I always looked forward to a whizz bang, although the thrill of making a loud bang every ten seconds palled after a while.

Good to see this thread back on track.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

You've taught me nothing Bob, sorry to disappoint.

Where will you go after Nuts?

I can't tell you what a huge disappointment that is to me, Natasha, when I had you down as a possibility for Student of the Year. Nevertheless, as you are clearly a great lover of literature I thought I might throw a G K Chesterton quote at you:

A man is angry at a libel because it is false, but at a satire because it is true.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:It was always an uphill battle for both of us to get Nuts regular posters to even think about the facts or the truth wasn't it, Sluffy, living, as they were and are in a state of ingrained indignance at the very idea of anyone challenging entrenched notions based on nothing other than ignorance and prejudice?

Maybe one or two might have learned something they didn't know but no more than a little learning, I expect.

One thing I've noticed and learned from over the years is how surprisingly often my mind seems to find a quote or saying that seems appropriate to the circumstance I find myself in at the time, for instance the first thing that jumped into my head as I was reading your post referring to others not wishing to learn was of course 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink'.

Now the reason I'm rambling on about this can be cover by yet another saying 'there's nothing new under the Sun', or in other words people have been in similar positions before and realised the same things - namely you can spell something out to someone but they don't have to believe it - even when you KNOW you are right and they are wrong.

As a youth/young man this used to bother me as I often wanted to help people if I could and I couldn't understand why they refused it - sometimes when I absolutely knew I was right and they were wrong.

But somewhere and at sometime in my dim and distant past I started to question myself as to why am I being bothered by people not listening to me, after all I've done the right thing by letting them know a different view to the one they have fixed in their minds and what do I care really if they carry on doing their own thing and it goes wrong for them?

I even do the same to my own daughter and reason it out that sometimes you have to make mistakes as the only way you can learn the lesson yourself.

I'm a cautious chap by nature and not prone to kneejerk reactions, I'm also placid and laid back, so adding that 'new' string to my bow, as to 'what do I care if they don't believe me, I tried, I did my bit, up to them now' type mentality, seemed somehow appropriate to me.

It really comes in handy on social media I find!  

Nobody loves a know it all but most people can generally accept well meaning ones (who don't rub their noses in it afterwards!), so all I do is offer up the best help, knowledge, advise I can and if they don't want to accept it - so what?

If people want to believe Anderson was the Devil, that Iles is really an esteemed journalist, or the ST have always had altruistic intentions in respect of the club (I couldn't type that last one without chuckling!), then let them - simple as that.

You/we've done our bit by leading them to water, it's entirely up to them if they want to drink from it our piss in it.

I don't care at all.

It's just the internet, no one will come to no harm, if people don't want to listen then that's down to them.

Even in the believed you/me completely, so what, it doesn't really change anything from the past does it, things won't be any different really will they?

Eddie, Holdsworth and Anderson have all gone, Eddie Davies Trust has now been settled, the link to the past has been broken.

Everybody has moved on, don't get left behind Bob, you told them, like I did, they simply didn't want to listen then and they certainly won't want to listen now - the horse we led to water is long since dead, there isn't much point in flogging it anymore really is there?



Know that you were right, that we stood our ground and no one believed us, some do now but it doesn't change history one jot.

We got terribly abused at the time but so what, sticks and stones, isn't it really?

Fuck 'em.

Let's look forward to fighting future battles eh and not dwell on past ones.

Onwards and upwards and all that!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
I can't tell you what a huge disappointment that is to me, Natasha, when I had you down as a possibility for Student of the Year. Nevertheless, as you are clearly a great lover of literature I thought I might throw a G K Chesterton quote at you:

A man is angry at a libel because it is false, but at a satire because it is true.

He also said:

'Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese'.

Think on.

boltonbonce wrote:
He also said:

'Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese'.

Think on.

He did and as Hylda might have said, I can't apprehend that one.

wanderlust wrote:1. I suspect I'm more qualified to analyse what happened than you and Sluffy put together.
2. The financial statements produced more questions than answers so the only conclusion possible was that a considerable amount of supporting information would be required in order to make a feasible interpretation.
3. In the absence of the requisite supporting information there is nothing to grasp - other than we can all surmise what actually happened to our heart's content - and on this site we ultimately agreed to disagree as a result.
4. For the benefit of those who didn't spend their careers in the world of business analysis and consultancy and are interested in what really happened it is highly inappropriate and misleading to peddle personal theories as if they were facts.

If you are to learn anything, let it be that people will put forward their own theories and apply their own prejudices regardless in the absence of facts and that is absolutely fine on a forum providing the poster makes it clear that it's an opinion, suspicion or concern - which you consistently fail to do.

In other words I peddled myself a personal theory for three years that Anderson was raping and pillaging the club to enrich himself and gave barrel loads of shit and abuse to Sluffy because he dared to suggest I was wrong but when it came down to it and the books were examined by officers of the court, nothing untoward was found and left me in a massive big hole looking like the complete cock I have been, but so as not to lose face I'll waffle on about there being no proof, not to believe personal theories (other than mine of course!) and that I'm a massive expert in these things and nobody can ever prove that I was completely found out to be nothing more than an opinionated and foul mouth know it all!

Natasha Whittam wrote:It's almost time for the 'Most Annoying Poster Of The Year' poll.

Bob should clear a space on his mantelpiece.

 Didn't we have a bellend of the year award as well? Nine bob is odds on for that one as well.

Sluffy wrote:

One thing I've noticed and learned from over the years is how surprisingly often my mind seems to find a quote or saying that seems appropriate to the circumstance I find myself in at the time, for instance the first thing that jumped into my head as I was reading your post referring to others not wishing to learn was of course 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink'.

Now the reason I'm rambling on about this can be cover by yet another saying 'there's nothing new under the Sun', or in other words people have been in similar positions before and realised the same things - namely you can spell something out to someone but they don't have to believe it - even when you KNOW you are right and they are wrong.

As a youth/young man this used to bother me as I often wanted to help people if I could and I couldn't understand why they refused it - sometimes when I absolutely knew I was right and they were wrong.

But somewhere and at sometime in my dim and distant past I started to question myself as to why am I being bothered by people not listening to me, after all I've done the right thing by letting them know a different view to the one they have fixed in their minds and what do I care really if they carry on doing their own thing and it goes wrong for them?

I even do the same to my own daughter and reason it out that sometimes you have to make mistakes as the only way you can learn the lesson yourself.

I'm a cautious chap by nature and not prone to kneejerk reactions, I'm also placid and laid back, so adding that 'new' string to my bow, as to 'what do I care if they don't believe me, I tried, I did my bit, up to them now' type mentality, seemed somehow appropriate to me.

It really comes in handy on social media I find!  

Nobody loves a know it all but most people can generally accept well meaning ones (who don't rub their noses in it afterwards!), so all I do is offer up the best help, knowledge, advise I can and if they don't want to accept it - so what?

If people want to believe Anderson was the Devil, that Iles is really an esteemed journalist, or the ST have always had altruistic intentions in respect of the club (I couldn't type that last one without chuckling!), then let them - simple as that.

You/we've done our bit by leading them to water, it's entirely up to them if they want to drink from it our piss in it.

I don't care at all.

It's just the internet, no one will come to no harm, if people don't want to listen then that's down to them.

Even in the believed you/me completely, so what, it doesn't really change anything from the past does it, things won't be any different really will they?

Eddie, Holdsworth and Anderson have all gone, Eddie Davies Trust has now been settled, the link to the past has been broken.

Everybody has moved on, don't get left behind Bob, you told them, like I did, they simply didn't want to listen then and they certainly won't want to listen now - the horse we led to water is long since dead, there isn't much point in flogging it anymore really is there?



Know that you were right, that we stood our ground and no one believed us, some do now but it doesn't change history one jot.

We got terribly abused at the time but so what, sticks and stones, isn't it really?

Fuck 'em.

Let's look forward to fighting future battles eh and not dwell on past ones.

Onwards and upwards and all that!

Actually, Sluffy, I always had the Dorothy Parker version more in mind:

You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think

The young lad has done it again - interview with Admin following the Spaniards offer being accepted -

Sluffy wrote:

In other words I peddled myself a personal theory for three years that Anderson was raping and pillaging the club to enrich himself and gave barrel loads of shit and abuse to Sluffy because he dared to suggest I was wrong but when it came down to it and the books were examined by officers of the court, nothing untoward was found and left me in a massive big hole looking like the complete cock I have been, but so as not to lose face I'll waffle on about there being no proof, not to believe personal theories (other than mine of course!) and that I'm a massive expert in these things and nobody can ever prove that I was completely found out to be nothing more than an opinionated and foul mouth know it all!

...says the prima donna of opinion disguised as fact and surmise dressed up as analysis.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

In other words I peddled myself a personal theory for three years that Anderson was raping and pillaging the club to enrich himself and gave barrel loads of shit and abuse to Sluffy because he dared to suggest I was wrong but when it came down to it and the books were examined by officers of the court, nothing untoward was found and left me in a massive big hole looking like the complete cock I have been, but so as not to lose face I'll waffle on about there being no proof, not to believe personal theories (other than mine of course!) and that I'm a massive expert in these things and nobody can ever prove that I was completely found out to be nothing more than an opinionated and foul mouth know it all!

...says the prima donna of opinion disguised as fact and surmise dressed up as analysis.

Well whatever you want to call it, it's been on the money and your "more qualified to analysis" know-it-all expertise, than Bob and mine "put together", has been shown to be complete and utter bollocks!!!

Not remember the time when Bob pointed out to you that you were out in your calculations by about £150m!!!

It still brings a smile to my face when I think of that!



You must have earned a fortune in your career in the "world of business analysis and consultancy" with accuracy and attention to detail like that!!!

You are certainly good for a laugh, I'll grant you that!

Anyway, Sluffy, its your site and up to you but as Eddie's no longer with us and Sue's settled for whatever she's settled for lets draw the curtains, shut the book and forget everything that ever happened.

By the same token, maybe we should also never mention David Jack, Joe Smith, Charles Foweraker,  Harry Goslin, Ray Westwood, Nat Lofthouse, Eddie Hopkinson, Tommy Banks, Freddie Hill or anyone else that's made any kind of mark in the history of Bolton Wanderers.

Do you get my drift?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Anyway, Sluffy, its your site and up to you but as Eddie's no longer with us and Sue's settled for whatever she's settled for lets draw the curtains, shut the book and forget everything that ever happened.

By the same token, maybe we should also never mention David Jack, Joe Smith, Charles Foweraker,  Harry Goslin, Ray Westwood, Nat Lofthouse, Eddie Hopkinson, Tommy Banks, Freddie Hill or anyone else that's made any kind of mark in the history of Bolton Wanderers.

Do you get my drift?

Experience tells me there's very little interest in those names from the past. The same can be said for most clubs.
Modern supporters seem only interested in the here and now. The past in another country.
As for ED, I think he was a decent man, and a genuine supporter, who did the best, as he saw it, for the club, and has, in my opinion, been unfairly maligned.
I can't speak of financial matters, because I'd be talking out of my arse, although that's quite normal for me and a situation you all have to face on a daily basis, and for which I apologise.
I'm now going to watch an episode of The Twilight Zone. Goodnight.