Bolton's Finances / Accounts for year ending 30th June 2021 and everything else since.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

That's a very cocky statement coming from a bloke whose wife keeps a magnifying glass next to the bed.

Don't forget the tweezers.

Norpig wrote:Don't forget the tweezers.

I didn't want to embarrass you.

I love the fact that despite all the knob threads on Nuts over the years, sluffy chose a finances thread to reveal this story.

I've been out. What's going on? Who are you people?

Natasha Whittam wrote:I love the fact that despite all the knob threads on Nuts over the years, sluffy chose a finances thread to reveal this story.

I've never known so much interest being shown in the clubs account thread before...


Does that answer your question!



Tbh it probably isn't the best thing to be drawing attention to, it might not be IE, and who really wants to see someone flopping his willy about (not me anyway), so I thought maybe posting it in a thread that few seem to be interested in would at least let some know what seems to be out there on social media so that they could better understand whatever rumours they may hear folks are talking about.

Fwiw I did consider posting the clip up on here yesterday, but thought better of it and I note it has since been taken down on ww (or at least taken off the public area of the site).

I also had a look at a certain Liverpool fans twitter account who certainly isn't an IE fan but there was nothing to see on there, so maybe it wasn't IE and/or the video hasn't been widely seen yet?

Even if it was IE I don't think he's broken any laws and could have done it years before he ever became a manager.

Clear not the smartest thing to do!

Maybe it was just simply his way of demonstrating, by using his phone only, his tactical view of playing with one big guy up front on his own...?

Over 11,000 views suggests there might be a bit of interest in th'accounts, Sluffy.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Over 11,000 views suggests there might be a bit of interest in th'accounts, Sluffy.

5500 each for you and Sluffy

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Over 11,000 views suggests there might be a bit of interest in th'accounts, Sluffy.

Sadly Bob, the way these things work is that whenever someone goes on a search engine, such as Google, and puts in some key words, say Bolton, accounts/accountants, search bots scour the internet and 'find views' on threads like this one, and return with their findings ranked in relevance order.

So for example just type in Accounts Bolton in to Google and it returns 51,700,000 results in a a fraction of a second.

One of those result will be a view of this thread.

This is the URL shortened link to Google's search for 'Accounts', 'Bolton'.

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

So the reality is that say maybe 500 people have really viewed the thread and the other 10,500 views are simply search bot views.

And of those 500 real people it could simply be 50 0f them viewing the thread over the weeks and months a total of just 10 times each.

Norpig wrote:
5500 each for you and Sluffy

Don't undersell thisen, Monsieur Pignon. If Nutters had any taste for your flashes of banter, badinage and endless supply of witticisms it would surely have accounted for a few thousand views.

A bit more on the Wagatha (his) Dicky case, the gossip is that it is a vid from Barrow days, sent to 'Amy' who seemed to have had troubles of her own.

Obviously I have no idea how true this (or even if it is relevant) but everything linked to below is already out in the public domain and has been for around three years...

Was there any truth in our old manager having a fling with Amy Fenton who previously worked for the Mail and that had a decision in him going
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Barrow journalist, Amy Fenton charged with drug-driving and possession of class A drugs
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Chief reporter leaves daily after death threat exile and drug conviction
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Norpig wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Over 11,000 views suggests there might be a bit of interest in th'accounts, Sluffy.

5500 each for you and Sluffy

Trending on Twitter and taking Wanky Wanderers to a whole new level.

"Evatt, Evatt give us a wave" guaranteed to be chanted at every match for the rest of the season.

You'd think he'd want to keep something that small out of the limelight.

Why do we attract these people. Remember Bassini dropping his pants?

Sluffy wrote:

Sadly Bob, the way these things work is that whenever someone goes on a search engine, such as Google, and puts in some key words, say Bolton, accounts/accountants, search bots scour the internet and 'find views' on threads like this one, and return with their findings ranked in relevance order.

So for example just type in Accounts Bolton in to Google and it returns 51,700,000 results in a a fraction of a second.

One of those result will be a view of this thread.

This is the URL shortened link to Google's search for 'Accounts', 'Bolton'.

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

So the reality is that say maybe 500 people have really viewed the thread and the other 10,500 views are simply search bot views.

And of those 500 real people it could simply be 50 0f them viewing the thread over the weeks and months a total of just 10 times each.

Let  me get this right, Sluffy, if I set up a new topic on Nuts called Bolton Accounts, the bots will go crazy and it will get 10,000 views?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Sadly Bob, the way these things work is that whenever someone goes on a search engine, such as Google, and puts in some key words, say Bolton, accounts/accountants, search bots scour the internet and 'find views' on threads like this one, and return with their findings ranked in relevance order.

So for example just type in Accounts Bolton in to Google and it returns 51,700,000 results in a a fraction of a second.

One of those result will be a view of this thread.

This is the URL shortened link to Google's search for 'Accounts', 'Bolton'.

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

So the reality is that say maybe 500 people have really viewed the thread and the other 10,500 views are simply search bot views.

And of those 500 real people it could simply be 50 0f them viewing the thread over the weeks and months a total of just 10 times each.

Let  me get this right, Sluffy, if I set up a new topic on Nuts called Bolton Accounts, the bots will go crazy and it will get 10,000 views?

Eventually, yes.

I know it sounds incredible but that's how the internet works.

In the Admin section we can see the ip addresses of who is logged in and when they logged in.

In theory the ip addresses show where the person is logged in from but it is so easy to get around that these days that it is absolutely meaningless - people simply use 'fake' (proxy server) addresses.

But the point I'm getting to is the time they've logged on.

Now on Nuts if you haven't been active on the site inside a hour, you are automatically 'closed off' - meaning you are still logged in and can type something but your log-in time starts from then and not from earlier on.

At the moment we have 4 visitor accounts that have been on-line since yesterday!

(I've seen them be logged in for weeks let alone just 24 hours!).

I don't think for one moment they are really people but simply some sort of surveillance bots.

Surveillance bots on little old Bolton Nuts you say, have I gone mad?

Well yes, and no I haven't gone mad.

Every time you click on somewhere, the place you are looking at places 'cookies' on your computer/laptop/phone, and unless you don't specifically refuse a whole host of other companies connected to the one you have just clicked on, attach their cookies to your computer/laptop/phone as well!

Nearly all of it is harmless but you do give away a whole lot of stuff about yourself that perhaps you never intended to.

I've no idea what these 4 current accounts are following us for, I don't believe it is sinister to any extent but there clearly are reason these 'bots' are 'clicking on to Nuts every hour, night and day.

A few weeks back, I don't know if anyone noticed, we had quite regularly a couple of 100 or so visitors on throughout the day and night for about a month or more.  The ip address were shown to be from China, no idea if they actually were or not.

Why people were 'watching' us I have no idea, and they just all faded away one day, so I guess whatever they were looking for they couldn't find on here.

I guess what I'm saying Bob, is that when I say don't believe whatever you see on the internet without checking it out first for yourself, also includes don't believe the admin stats about the site either.

Believe me (or not!) there hasn't been anything remotely like 11,000 people who have viewed this thread, I would be surprised if the were even 50 or more, with probably about a dozen who really follows it.

If you want to do a little experiment yourself, simply look on the Bolton Wanderers News part of the forum where Karly very kindly posts up all the Bolton News articles for all to see.

If you look at page 1, you will see each article receives about an average of 30 views, if you look at the mid page which is shown as page 158, the average is over 500 views a page, and if you look at the earliest pages 314/5/6 the average is over 1,000.

Now that isn't because we had a 1,000 viewers back in those days, nor 500 viewers when the articles views averaged 500 each, it is simply because search bots over the months and years have clicked on to the articles and thus raising their view count accordingly.

Take the 'viewed' totals with a pinch of salt, is my advice, I really find it amazing that say that even 10 people want to read what you and I are saying about the accounts/FV on here, and I'm sure as eggs are eggs, that there are definitely NOT 11,000 viewers riveted to what we've been posting!

If you say so, Sluffy, but what about Norpig? He divides 11,000 by two and comes up with the right answer. Who'da thunkit?  All that education wasn't wasted after all.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:If you say so, Sluffy, but what about Norpig? He divides 11,000 by two and comes up with the right answer. Who'da thunkit?  All that education wasn't wasted after all.

Well I do say so, but feel free not to accept my word for it, I'm only a random bloke on the internet when all said and done - and I'm the one who perpetually warns everyone not to believe what you read on social media such as this is, without checking things out for yourself.

Norpig, if we do accept what he says as being a manager in a hospital dispensary, clearly has a good brain in his head or he wouldn't be in that job, so yes, all the education was far from wasted on him and in fact helps him now to save lives which let's face is more generally valued to most people in society than an exceptionally good accountant or a humble public servant such as myself.

Thanks Sluffy, i just try and make sure we have the drugs available to help people really, a tough and stressful job at the best of times.

Education wise i wasn't great to be honest but i do ok.

Norpig wrote:Thanks Sluffy, i just try and make sure we have the drugs available to help people really, a tough and stressful job at the best of times.

Education wise i wasn't great to be honest but i do ok.

Really? Bob was on the money then, Walter!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]