If Jaaskelainen has been our best ever keeper who has been the second best?

I get loads of scam calls when i'm at home during the day and they are usually automated. The ones i can remember are

Amazon account been hacked
Warrant out for my arrest
BT broadband to be cut off

I got an email that said I was due a refund of £850 from HMRC. All I had to do was reply with my credit card details and the refund would be paid directly to that card......Must admit I prefer to be tempted like that rather than threatened with jail

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So given the situation you describe was it financially irresponsible/deliberately deceptive of KA to promise payments he knew we weren't in a position to pay?

I think from what Bob said above he's blocked you, so I'll have a go at answering you.

If you believe the world is binary, either right or wrong with nothing in the middle, then if he knew for certain he wouldn't be able to complete the transaction on the due date, that the answer to your question is yes.

But real life including and how companies can (and do run) are somewhere between the two extremes.

It is a crime to run a business knowing it to be insolvent but the precise point of when a business tips into insolvency is very difficult to determine.

Take for instance you run your own home and have a very tight budget with not much to spare, and commit to say a new car and three months later your washing machine unexpectedly breaks down and needs replacing.  Are you wrong to have committed to the car you can no longer keep up payments for?

I don't know what the financial thinking the decision to sign Doidge was based on - but I'm certain his contract was enforceable in law by both Doidge and FGR and thus don't necessary share Bob's outlook on events.

If Doidge/FGR had wanted to enforce the contracts and make BWFC (NOT Ken Anderson remember) stump up, they could have done and not necessarily by forcing the club into Administration but by winning their case and enforcing it through the Sheriffs/Bailiffs  - I'm sure we've all seen the programmes and if iirc one of them happened at Swindon Town where a debt was successfully chased up.

As it happens even this was not required and simply reporting it to the EFL would have sufficed and Doidge/FGR would have received immediate payment the week after from Bolton's share of the next periodic EFL payment.

I'm of the opinion that Eddie Davies would have still played lender of last resort but we will never know that to be correct or not.

Why did we even sign Doidge probably goes more to the heart of the decision and what followed I would suggest.

Maybe the thinking was he would be a success and his goals would keep us up and we cold sell him on in the summer for a fat profit (keeping us up in itself would have been worth £6m difference in TV revenue to Championship clubs and third tier teams).

Maybe having a team doing ok would make a difference in finding investment/a sale, than a club that looked doomed and had a stench of death hanging over it.

Maybe he thought he'd got rid of the Heathcote self enriching contract (to them) that could/would have financed the stage payments required on the due by date.

Could have been loads of reasons - good and bad - but I still come back to the point that like him or hate him, Anderson was a very shrewd operator in business and he would have known about his personal liability if it could be proved he was knowingly trading when insolvent and also that the Doidge/FGR contracts where legally enforceable against BWFC.

For those two reasons alone I don't believe there was any intent other than to have definitely committed to the Doidge transfer at the time it was believing/wishfully reasonably thinking that the money would be there to fulfil the legal obligation at the due time.

It's probably not the answer Bob would have given based on his comments above but it's possibly the only answer you are going to get, at least for now.

Thanks Sluffy, appreciate the response. I was really playing devils advocate with my response to Bob - i don't know the reasons/motive behind what was agreed with FGR.

Bob, on the other hand, has intimated that the facts make it obvious - I think it's pretty clear that they don't, and we're left with a few different theories.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Thanks Sluffy, appreciate the response. I was really playing devils advocate with my response to Bob - i don't know the reasons/motive behind what was agreed with FGR.

Bob, on the other hand, has intimated that the facts make it obvious - I think it's pretty clear that they don't, and we're left with a few different theories.

Maybe he's taken in to account something I haven't?

I simply state my view based on the legality of the contracts being enforceable and the fact that knowingly trading when insolvent places unlimited personal liability on the Directors (Ken being the only one at the time iirc) and I'm certain he would never allow himself to get in that position.

I certainly would not conclude Bob is wrong without hearing his reasoning and he's not required to do so unless he wishes too and having blocked you I suggest it's highly likely he won't trouble himself to do so - perhaps he will, who knows?

However as I've said a number of times now, the moment has gone and since been lost in time, everybody directly involved seems to have resolved their issues over the transfer and moved on, so seems only sensible (to me at least) that we do the same.

Norpig wrote:I get loads of scam calls when i'm at home during the day and they are usually automated. The ones i can remember are

Amazon account been hacked
Warrant out for my arrest
BT broadband to be cut off

I get plenty myself.
£600 has been taken from your account. This is so regular I'm surprised I've any money left.

Sluffy wrote:However as I've said a number of times now, the moment has gone and since been lost in time, everybody directly involved seems to have resolved their issues over the transfer and moved on, so seems only sensible (to me at least) that we do the same.

Completely agree - but the attacks on Vince either need to be substantiated or stopped. And that’s all I’ve tried to get Bob to do. Clearly it’s easier for him to block me than do that.

boltonbonce wrote:

Norpig wrote:I get loads of scam calls when i'm at home during the day and they are usually automated. The ones i can remember are

Amazon account been hacked
Warrant out for my arrest
BT broadband to be cut off

I get plenty myself.
£600 has been taken from your account. This is so regular I'm surprised I've any money left.

For a number of years now I don't even bother to answer the house phone - I always give my mobile number as my contact and don't answer my mobile if it isn't a number I recognise.

Sometimes I have to do when expecting a call back - for instance my local council don't show a number when they call* - but even now I get plagued by the house phone ringing numerous times throughout the week.

* I once ask why the did that and was told that it's a safety thing for people who may not want others knowing they have been touch with the council for issues such as domestic abuse or Social Services needs, etc.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Completely agree - but the attacks on Vince either need to be substantiated or stopped. And that’s all I’ve tried to get Bob to do. Clearly it’s easier for him to block me than do that.

It's clearly Bob's bee in his bonnet in just the same way Anderson is still in the bonnet of many including more than a few on here.

People feel passionate about things.

I'm a cold fish as such, I tend to think everything is a game (even life itself) and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I tend to go with my head than with my heart and at the end of the day life's simply too short to carry baggage around from the past - what's the point in doing so really?

I don't believe Anderson was anything like the Devil he was made out to be, but was simply running an insolvent business in a way to keep it running for as long as possible before the inevitable in the hope a sale may have happened first - and the vast majority of people simply had no understanding of that.

Going off on a tangent for a moment, I don't know if you have been following the developments at Wigan recently on Latics Speyk but it is an exact replica of what happened at Bolton with the Administrators playing the role of KA.  The complete misunderstanding of what their role is, why they are there and why they need to do what they do exactly mirrors the Bolton's fans view of Anderson, namely they have destroyed the club, have lined their own pockets in doing so and couldn't give a fuck about the fans or how they feel!

Every day I'm sorely tempted to go on there and try to explain things to them but I know how I was treated on here for my troubles, so being a Bolton fan telling Wigan fans why they are wrong in their beliefs certainly wouldn't end happily for me - would it!

Going back on topic I also firmly believe Vince made a totally unnecessary and very public shitstorm for reasons known to himself but clearly with/due to links to the ST.

Both those 'games' have been played to my mind and I've moved on but clearly some can't forgive Ken and at least one hasn't forgiven Vince.

Christ more than a few carry grudges against me from the forums, I'm the bee in their bonnets.

As far as I'm concerned I always did the right and proper things at the time.

Maybe Ken and Vince believe the same of themselves (I see it with KA but not with Vince, myself)?

If they can't get over it, it's their problem, so let them stew on it if they want, it's not going to change anything is it?

The 'game' were we are now at is FV ownership and a season of fourth tier football ahead.

The bonus, at least for me, is not having to listen to Keith Hill's utter drivel this year!

Onwards and upwards and all that.

Carry on like this, Sluffy, and I'm going to have to enrol you on an intensive course with Judge Judy.
You haven't got your 'listening ears' on and haven't got your 'thinking head' on either.

BWFC was insolvent, couldn't pay its debts on time and, losing £100K per week, couldn't trade out of the
situation. It wasn't marginal, equivocal, uncertain, foggy, confusing, nebulous, misty, hazy. It was as plain as the plainest pikestaff.
 
The only legal justification for continuing in business was to try to raise more capital to turn insolvency into solvency. That's what Ken Anderson was trying to do and it didn't work for him just as it hadn't worked for Eddie over all the years he tried.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Carry on like this, Sluffy, and I'm going to have to enrol you on an intensive course with Judge Judy.
You haven't got your 'listening ears' on and haven't got your 'thinking head' on either.

BWFC was insolvent, couldn't pay its debts on time and, losing £100K per week, couldn't trade out of the
situation. It wasn't marginal, equivocal, uncertain, foggy, confusing, nebulous, misty, hazy. It was as plain as the plainest pikestaff.
 
The only legal justification for continuing in business was to try to raise more capital to turn insolvency into solvency. That's what Ken Anderson was trying to do and it didn't work for him just as it hadn't worked for Eddie over all the years he tried.

Isn't that, put more bluntly admittedly, what I said?

"If you fear that your company has reached an insolvent position, you must tread very carefully. Insolvency is when you are unable to pay bills as they fall due, or when the total of company liabilities exceeds the total value of assets held.

Trading while knowingly insolvent may lead to accusations of wrongful trading, or the more serious charge of fraudulent trading if you are thought to have deliberately attempted to deny creditors what they are owed.

Both wrongful trading and fraudulent trading are offences under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 2006. Wrongful trading is a civil offence, while fraudulent trading is a criminal offence.

It is incumbent on a director to be aware of their company’s financial position at all times, and putting forward a defence that you were unaware of the insolvent situation will carry little weight. Failing to realise that a company is in financial difficulties may be regarded as negligent, irresponsible, or proof of ‘unfit conduct’ of directors, which will add to the seriousness of the situation".

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

From my point of view he went down the 'wrongful trading' path -

"Directors have an obligation to inform company shareholders when an insolvent position has been reached, and to seek the guidance of a licensed Insolvency Practitioner.

Although directors may have carried on trading with good intentions in order to ultimately guide the company out of trouble, they have a duty to put creditors’ interests first when insolvency strikes and to limit creditors’ exposure to additional debt. In many cases this will mean the company should cease trading immediately, however, there are certain exceptions to this such as if the company is midway through a lucrative contract which will bring in more money to the business than it will cost to complete. The rules surrounding this are complex and fraught with complications therefore professional insolvency advice should be taken as a matter of urgency".

Otherwise as you so clearly put it he would had to notify ALL the shareholders that the company was insolvent and although he owned most of the shares there were others owning on paper at least just over 5% of it - and they were certainly never notified (not knowingly anyway!).

He either had to admit that the club WAS insolvent at the time it became so - let's for argument sake say it was before the Doidge transfer OR he had to trade in probably a 'wrongful trading' situation justifying his actions as in the best interests of the club in that, presumably, he was in the process of selling it?

As he didn't declare to the shareholders the club was insolvent then  in his eyes, and presumably the Administrators afterwards who up to now have taken no action against him / nor Companies House either - have deemed it to not have been - despite the clear evidence you present.

I don't disagree with your facts or even your conclusions but actual events haven't confirmed that was the case so 'officially' and until we learn something contrary in the future, the record books will show that it wasn't.

So I believe I've been actually saying the same as you but in a more, shall we say, sugar coated way.

I've always had a thirst for learning and would go back to school to learn more any day.  I'm not sure Judge Judy, Judge Rinder or Judge Romesh would be right for me but I think I would find Judge David Attenborough, Judge Maggie Aderin-Pocock and Judge Jim Al-Khalili much more of a personal interest, although I doubt their specialisms are about company insolvencies!

I would have my listening ears and thinking head on though.

I'd invite you to attend with me, I'm sure neither one of us are past learning something new.

Sluffy wrote:

Isn't that, put more bluntly admittedly, what I said?

"If you fear that your company has reached an insolvent position, you must tread very carefully. Insolvency is when you are unable to pay bills as they fall due, or when the total of company liabilities exceeds the total value of assets held.

Trading while knowingly insolvent may lead to accusations of wrongful trading, or the more serious charge of fraudulent trading if you are thought to have deliberately attempted to deny creditors what they are owed.

Both wrongful trading and fraudulent trading are offences under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 2006. Wrongful trading is a civil offence, while fraudulent trading is a criminal offence.

It is incumbent on a director to be aware of their company’s financial position at all times, and putting forward a defence that you were unaware of the insolvent situation will carry little weight. Failing to realise that a company is in financial difficulties may be regarded as negligent, irresponsible, or proof of ‘unfit conduct’ of directors, which will add to the seriousness of the situation".

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

From my point of view he went down the 'wrongful trading' path -

"Directors have an obligation to inform company shareholders when an insolvent position has been reached, and to seek the guidance of a licensed Insolvency Practitioner.

Although directors may have carried on trading with good intentions in order to ultimately guide the company out of trouble, they have a duty to put creditors’ interests first when insolvency strikes and to limit creditors’ exposure to additional debt. In many cases this will mean the company should cease trading immediately, however, there are certain exceptions to this such as if the company is midway through a lucrative contract which will bring in more money to the business than it will cost to complete. The rules surrounding this are complex and fraught with complications therefore professional insolvency advice should be taken as a matter of urgency".

Otherwise as you so clearly put it he would had to notify ALL the shareholders that the company was insolvent and although he owned most of the shares there were others owning on paper at least just over 5% of it - and they were certainly never notified (not knowingly anyway!).

He either had to admit that the club WAS insolvent at the time it became so - let's for argument sake say it was before the Doidge transfer OR he had to trade in probably a 'wrongful trading' situation justifying his actions as in the best interests of the club in that, presumably, he was in the process of selling it?

As he didn't declare to the shareholders the club was insolvent then  in his eyes, and presumably the Administrators afterwards who up to now have taken no action against him / nor Companies House either - have deemed it to not have been - despite the clear evidence you present.

I don't disagree with your facts or even your conclusions but actual events haven't confirmed that was the case so 'officially' and until we learn something contrary in the future, the record books will show that it wasn't.

So I believe I've been actually saying the same as you but in a more, shall we say, sugar coated way.

I've always had a thirst for learning and would go back to school to learn more any day.  I'm not sure Judge Judy, Judge Rinder or Judge Romesh would be right for me but I think I would find Judge David Attenborough, Judge Maggie Aderin-Pocock and Judge Jim Al-Khalili much more of a personal interest, although I doubt their specialisms are about company insolvencies!

I would have my listening ears and thinking head on though.

I'd invite you to attend with me, I'm sure neither one of us are past learning something new.

I'm still recommending a Judge Judy course. Its very educational. Watch and learn how, in the blink of an eye, she sees through the shysters, wafflers and timewasters and cuts them down to size in an instant.

The debts were real, the losses were real and both Vince and Anderson knew it when Doidge was packed off to the Reebok/Macron/Unibol in August 2018.

KA was walking a financial tightrope with no safety net. He wasn't getting paid £550 per hour with all the legal protections administrators have. But he was an accomplished tightrope walker and got to the other side in the end despite every effort to push him off.

As for Eddie, he had an obligation to his wife not to spend any more of the severely diminished fortune they had left on keeping BWFC afloat for just a bit longer.

TBH Bob, I find Judge Judy irritating as the show is based around her arbitrarily deciding who she feels in in the wrong and then shutting down any evidence to the contrary and focusing entirely on the bits that support her perspective.
There are some cases where she is clearly in the right - perhaps that's why those cases were selected for broadcast - but equally there are many which appear contestable but the TV format doesn't allow for due process. Absolutely amazed the decisions are considered legally binding but I guess that the spotlight seekers who want to be on telly sign some form of disclaimer and have to accept the consequences. Haven't watched it for years for these very reasons so perhaps it's improved of late?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I'm still recommending a Judge Judy course. Its very educational. Watch and learn how, in the blink of an eye, she sees through the shysters, wafflers and timewasters and cuts them down to size in an instant.

The debts were real, the losses were real and both Vince and Anderson knew it when Doidge was packed off to the Reebok/Macron/Unibol in August 2018.

KA was walking a financial tightrope with no safety net. He wasn't getting paid £550 per hour with all the legal protections administrators have. But he was an accomplished tightrope walker and got to the other side in the end despite every effort to push him off.

As for Eddie, he had an obligation to his wife not to spend any more of the severely diminished fortune they had left on keeping BWFC afloat for just a bit longer.

I don't see my job as cutting down anyone at all really, I just simply try to understand what they are up to and why.

My problem I guess is that I post on the internet as I am in real life and in real life I try to understand things that interest me and try to help others who are not understanding such things.

As in real life too I totally understand that some people cannot accept they could possibly be wrong or learn they are wrong but won't admit it for losing face and try to belittle me/hold a grudge. I'm not suggestion you are one of those, certainly not at all to me, in fact you've helped me understand many things on the happenings and events at BWFC since before Eddie got involved and which I thank you for.

It's certainly a shame others on here and other forums have not listened and learned as well but that's their choice.

I don't know if Doidge/his agent made themselves aware of BWFC's financial position before his transfer but I would be surprised if Vince didn't as it is normal to do company checks when doing business before committing yourself for such big sums involved. No doubt the football grapevine was active at the time in respect of BWFC as well.

My view fwiw is that the nature of football where all football creditors are always guaranteed to be paid 100% what they owed meant Doidge/his agent had little reason to worry about anything - his pay was clearly going to come from FGR for the loan period and was always going to be guaranteed at Bolton when signed (even if he had to wait some months to get it - although I don't think he/his agent at the time thought it would ever come to that).

As for Vince what had he to lose letting the deal happen? He knew his money was always going to be 100% guaranteed either from BWFC or from the EFL putting pressure on BWFC to pay in so far as if they couldn't they could have made the case they had become insolvent which would trigger an automatic 12 point penalty and force Administration upon us.

I thing from Doidge/Vince point of view they believed they were on a no lose position irrespective of financial BWFC's position.

Having further thought about things over the last few days I've even thought up a new scenario as to what happened as to why Doidge went back to FGR and Vince blew his top after initially saying he would wait for the money and do a government sized U-turn just two days later.

How about Ken and Vince WERE happy to wait for EFL payment to come through BUT Doidge changed his mind over the deal having seen from inside the club what was happening and having some legal wriggle room in that the contract was not completed on the specified date?

Maybe Ken (after seeing Doidge not showing much at Championship level) was happy to back Doidge not going through with the transfer (so Ken became a winner of sorts from this mess by not having to pay a fee and monthly wages thereafter for a player who didn't want to be with us and at that point showed no form at all) and the only loser being Vince who was being left in a position of not receiving a transfer fee he had no doubt budgeted for and having to take back his player and pay him that he hadn't budgeted for (or at least had earmarked the wages for some other player he now had not the money for his wages to sign as well)?

Could explain the sudden change in Vince from easy going to raving anger in just two days?

Water under the bridge now anyway.

The one thing that does get lost in all of this though and which you are absolutely right to wave a flag for, is Eddies benevolence and our indebtedness to him even now in that the assets he left behind in the club are still core to it's continuing existence.

Absolutely agree wander. She started off as a judge, and then became a performer. Stopped watching years ago.

gloswhite wrote:Absolutely agree wander. She started off as a judge, and then became a performer. Stopped watching years ago.

She was reported to be on $1 million per episode too!

Judge Rinder is much more enjoyable.

wanderlust wrote:TBH Bob, I find Judge Judy irritating as the show is based around her arbitrarily deciding who she feels in in the wrong and then shutting down any evidence to the contrary and focusing entirely on the bits that support her perspective.
There are some cases where she is clearly in the right - perhaps that's why those cases were selected for broadcast - but equally there are many which appear contestable but the TV format doesn't allow for due process. Absolutely amazed the decisions are considered legally binding but I guess that the spotlight seekers who want to be on telly sign some form of disclaimer and have to accept the consequences. Haven't watched it for years for these very reasons so perhaps it's improved of late?

Interesting how we get from Jussi Jaaskelainen to Judge Judy but I'm not sure you've taken the point, Lusty. Judge Judy would not be a star if she was an old waffler, would she? She's a star because of the way she cuts through the hogwash, the evasions, the illusions and the delusions.

I can't help imagining Dean Holdsworth and Ken Anderson appearing on the Judge Judy Show.

"Your claim, Mr Holdsworth, is that you want Mr Anderson to compensate you for fees you incurred before you bought some shares off a Mr Davies.

"Yes, your Honour"
 
"How much did you pay for those shares?"

''50P, your Honour"

"And how much do you say you spent on fees"

"Best part of a million pounds, your Honour"

" I see. Now tell me, Mr Holdsworth, who did you pay 'the best part of a million pounds' to and where did the money come from?"

"Erm"

"Erm is not an answer, Mr Holdsworth"

The people are real, the cases are real!!!!!!!!!!!!