Sponsors leaving us in protest...

What can they say ?

scottjames30 wrote:What can they say ?

They could try to appease the situation.

Saying nothing just creates the ill-feeling atmosphere which we currently have.

They released at statement at the start.

Nothing more to say.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:They released at statement at the start.

Nothing more to say.

I don't think for a minute you believe the crap you write.

You are clearly the biggest WUM on this site.

If you ran a business and you made a decision that pissed off half your customers there isn't a company in the land that wouldn't try and appease the situation. Except BWFC.

That's what I mean, its sending out the wrong message , if a footballer punches another footballer, it sends out the wrong message, if a footballer bites another footballer, it sends out the wrong message.

What ever happened to discipline in football ?

Like QQ is not sending out the wrong message ?

Gartside knows he's fucked up, so he wont say anything, what can he say ?

scottjames30 wrote:

Gartside knows he's fucked up, so he wont say anything, what can he say ?

He'll be saying quite a lot to the shareholders when profits from merchandise and sponsorship are at an all time low.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:They released at statement at the start.

Nothing more to say.

I don't think for a minute you believe the crap you write.

You are clearly the biggest WUM on this site.

If you ran a business and you made a decision that pissed off half your customers there isn't a company in the land that wouldn't try and appease the situation. Except BWFC.

I just write what i actually think.

novel for someone like you to understand i appreciate.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:

Gartside knows he's fucked up, so he wont say anything, what can he say ?

He'll be saying quite a lot to the shareholders when profits from merchandise and sponsorship are at an all time low.

He should of known it would of caused a stink though, surely .

If he didn't know that, he's losing his mind or just doesn't give a shit, which one ?

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

I just write what i actually think.

Bullshit. You're not dumb enough to think any good can come from saying nothing.

Is Garty on Facebook and Twitter? If so, I would think a number of disgruntled Wanderers fans would have made their feelings known via these modern mediums.

scottjames30 wrote:

He should of known it would of caused a stink though, surely .

If he didn't know that, he's losing his mind or just doesn't give a shit, which one ?

He's shown time and time again he is clueless when it comes to the finances of the club. How Eddie Davies hasn't sacked him is beyond me.

Strangely enough, it was Garty who sold the club and the Wanderers ethos to Eddie in the first place.

Are you sure its not Eddie making the decisions , and Gartside takes all the shite ?

scottjames30 wrote:Are you sure its not Eddie making the decisions , and Gartside takes all the shite ?

You are probably nearer the mark. Garty is salaried whereas Eddie just collects the interest payments on the loans each month. We could actually do a lot worse than having Garty as our Chairman but this sponsorship deal with Quick Quid will most certainly have upset a lot of the regular sponsors. Basically, I think the board fcuked up and went for who was prepared to pay the most. Some people might think it's fair game from a business point of view but I beg to differ.

If Al Queda or the EDL had asked to sponsor Bolton they would have been shown the door so why are Loan Sharks deemed acceptable. They prey on the most vulnerable people in our towns and cities and I personally think it's morally wrong to advertise their wares on the football shirt of a long standing club with an historical working man's background and tradition.

Chairmen are appointed by the board of directors of public limited companies, who are appointed by the company shareholders.

As 94.5% shareholder of the club, Eddie Davies could easily facilitate the removal of Garty.

Saying that eddie is our owner could actually be incorrect nowadays considering, as with last set of figures, most of our loans are now with an offshore financial company in services of Eddie!!

Gartside, I thought, was employed by eddie to run the business for him.

Who actually knows anything really?

Who owns the club for a start if the debt to Davies is bigger than his estimated personal wealth?

Did the club NEED the money - we are around £140 million in debt at the LAST accounts - God knows what it might be now?

Maybe a couple of hundred grand was needed right away - and Quick Quid were the only ones able to put their hands in their pocket for it immediately?

Was there any other alternative to Quick Quid? Maybe it was only ever talk about another sponsor being interested?

Nobody in Bolton will want to spend £500,000 sponsoring Bolton - what return will they ever get back on their advertising?

Which national or international businesses want to invest in a non Premier club apart from companies for gambling and money lending?

Maybe we needed the money and there was no one else?

Maybe it was a choice of Quick Quid or cutting half a dozen of the youth team?

Who knows - but there certainly seems to be loads of people in the last few days wanting to tell us what is right and wrong about the deal whilst being completely oblivious as to what the real facts are.

B&Q and Pizza Hut had indicated they might be interested but QQ probably offered the most money. I wasn't happy with 188BET but I dislike this latest deal even more. I'd rather just have the Reebok logo tbh.

bwfc71 wrote:Saying that eddie is our owner could actually be incorrect nowadays considering, as with last set of figures, most of our loans are now with an offshore financial company in services of Eddie!!

Gartside, I thought, was employed by eddie to run the business for him.

Correct - Gartside has the final say on financial decisions. He approves things like this and ALL player purchases as well as player contracts.

I find it hard to believe that the second highest bidder was offering considerably less than £500,000.

£500,000 over two years in its entirety is only just material in terms of the profit and loss.

It seems like a small reward for the further alienation of supporters.