Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion

Sluffy

Members
  • Content Count

    2,011
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Sluffy last won the day on December 15 2018

Sluffy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

92 Alreet

1 Follower

About Sluffy

  • Rank
    Sub's Bench

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

509 profile views
  1. Thanks, I always vaguely thought it was something along those lines but never really had much of an understanding of it.
  2. Talking about announcing the new owner/s (I'm asking the question generally to anyone who may know about these things - hopefully you might H), isn't the first announcement of such in these matters always to 'the City'? (I know 'the City' refers to the City of London). I've always assumed that to mean to the Stock Market but I don't know for certain and certainly don't know how it is announced, or who announces it? I assume the reason it is, is because people generally own shares in public quoted companies, and it effects them financially? Would the first we know about our new owners be when such an announcement is made. If so where should we be looking out for it, although I suspect you will probably at the front of the queue to inform us anyway? I know Burnden Leisure is privately owned but with many people owning the remaining 5% or so share holding, but am guessing it will still need to be announced in ' the City' also? I can't recall though if it was though when Holdsworth bought the club off Eddie? Any explanation of such would be of interest and appreciated please.
  3. I think you need to read Howards posts again. He stated multiple times that he did not know who the 'dark horse' purchaser was. He also explained clearly a couple of times that any secured debtor whose loan was in default could seek Administration but that they would be required to fund it and to have funds available to pay off all the secured debtors plus 25% of the total for all unsecured debtors. I don't think Nixon's called anything right on this takeover so far, as he, so your guess is as good as mine if he's right this time.
  4. Well I guess I'm guilty of following the 'influencer' who is H, he/she's certainly spellbound me. I'm out of my depth on the subject but what as been explained to us by H makes sense to me and questions I have had answered to my satisfaction. If H as called it right - as I believe they have, then the end game is already in process and there's probably not really much they can add to it even if they had stayed - which of course I hope they do. As for the tedious pedant to which you refer, they have been the most knowledgeable and communicative of what's been going on in financial terms for the last two or three years - for which I thank him. Do we really want to be left with Iles and Nixon as our best and only remaining source of understanding things from now on if we succeed in allowing them both to go? I hope not.
  5. We might have to share one soon at the old peoples retirement home! But seriously isn't it better to question sometimes than simply accept everything that we are told? I'm out of my depth with the things H as been telling us - but to me they have made sense - and any queries I've had have kindly been answered by H to my satisfaction. But what happens when the few that do know about this sort of stuff disagree with some of what is said? If you've been brought up to believe the bigger picture is more important than some minor detail - then fine - but what do you do if you've been brought up to believe without the minor detail you can't say what the bigger picture will really turn out to be? There is a sort of culture clash - a clash of the old and the new if you will. I was brought up to pay attention to detail. Some years back though this clash of the old and new was brought home to me, in that the job I was doing could not be done in the time available to me. I was told don't worry about the detail, as we had to get the volume of work through by a certain date - it was accepted that mistakes would unavoidably occur but would have to be sorted out at a later date after meeting the deadline. It felt wrong to me to authorise work I wasn't completely happy with - and knowing it would involve future costs - but in doing so targets would have been met payment and bonuses triggered and some/all of us would have long since moved on by the time the shit of not doing the job properly in the first place, would hit the fan. It was then that I realised the world I had known had changed and that I had moved on into another world (todays world) where this was normal and accepted. I might not like at times it but that's how it is. Not everything in it is bad and not everything in the world I grew up in was fantastic either. Social media isn't something I was brought up with, it was simply something my kids played on as they were growing up - now it's an essential communication tool that we all need access to. I simply don't comprehend the gullibility that many people have of what is told to them on the internet, that they simply believe without question - I highlight Iles as having such unquestioned influence. That's fine if you do it honestly and fairly - but what about if you do it and aren't? I think H has told us the big picture, one that most of us (including myself) accepts as a more than realistic outcome, Chris on the other hand isn't seeing how the minor details as told can build the bigger picture? Does it really matter one way or the other - we will all find out the answer soon enough. I guess it does to H, otherwise why go - and I guess it does to Chris - why else push the issue? As I say no winners here. I don't believe H to have had a particular agenda, at least about the likely outcome of events. I don't believe Chris has an agenda either other than to bottom out all the details that have been given. Could they have got on if they had both been of the same generation - I'm sure they could. Unfortunately they don't and this is where the clash stems from. Shame about how it's ended between the two (and Chris's unnecessary later posts) - but that is how todays world works - and as it is today's world, it is up to the old ones like myself to accept and adapt the best way one can to it, because my old world is no more. That's simply just facing up to the reality of life and a constantly changing world.
  6. I kept saying 'we' as a reference to those of us of a certain age, or older. No doubt one day you will take a moment out to wonder on the changes you've seen during your lifetime and reflect on the things that are now commonplace that hadn't been around when you were growing up. The point I was really trying to make though was that society too as also changed and moved on in that time and what was considered the 'right thing to do' back then is often no longer how society works today and thus some of us (myself included) have values that may well have become outdated and even ridiculed by todays generation but still mean much to us. I like to think in the main I can accept it, my world as been changed to one that has been shaped by what my children's generation wanted, and in turn their children is changing yet again as they come of age and influence and adapt it. I would like to think I've not played any part in Howard withdrawing from the site but I can understand why Chris was concerned about the detail of some of the things he read from H, as the devil is contained within it, or so the saying goes. Maybe, probably, social media is not suited to the discussion of such minutiae - indeed places like Twitter and FB is often full of 'whoppers' that are told which people seemingly believe without question. Similarly social media doesn't seem to deal well with people who disagree with the general consensus - they are often blocked, abused, threatened (rape and even death threats made - as per the lady who started the Stop Brexit Petition), - and all over something someone said on the ether. Chris was probably best to flag up his concern about some of the detail said by H, and left it at that. Maybe H over reacted a bit and simply should have ignored or blocked him (and anyone else he was running out of patience with), maybe too many harsh words have been posted about Chris since H seemingly walked away, and certainly several unnecessary, embarrassing and petulant posts from Chris since then, should probably not have been sent - which as cheapened his virtuous aim of simply seeking to bottom out the facts of the matter. I don't think anyone wins over this spat. If he doesn't return then I'd very much like to thank H for his input over the last two weeks, certainly educational, informative and for me at least, highly entertaining and enthralling . As for Chris I do continue to have a great deal of respect for him and his intent to seek out a clear understanding of things but perhaps for him (and myself) our day is past and the norm of today is to accept things at face value and not to question to much what social media 'influencers' say? I do hope, think, believe that H has been right all along (in the most part anyway) but maybe some/Chris simply wanted absolute certainty of it? Was that really such a bad thing to want? Boby Brno - fwiw it seems clear to me that Chris isn't defending KA per se but defending the honour and integrity of the accountants/auditors and their honesty and professionalism, in the compiling and certifying of the books at the club.
  7. Personally I wouldn't wish either one of you to go. It sometimes isn't fun when you believe you are posting honestly and in good faith and constantly clash against others who believe they are doing the same . I doubt Howard knows intimately every 'i' that is dotted or 't' that is crossed throughout the process and understand why someone like Chris would pick up these inaccuracies and challenge them. However we all will know for certain the outcome of events soon enough so please let us all stick together for a little while longer. Benny - my post of 'point well made' was about including Bonnar into my opinion on the reporting of the club in recent years.
  8. Good point, well made Traf, everything I've said above in respect of Iles equally applies to his boss, Neil Bonnar as well. It really isn't that difficult to remain fair and unbiased if you simply stick to the facts instead of publicly tweeting stuff like 'best for Bolton but worst outcome possible for Anderson. How can ANYONE claim that to be an impartial and a non biased comment - coming indeed from the HEAD OF SPORTS at the paper? Yet some folk clearly think it is I and others with the agenda???
  9. I hope H stays around too but I rather suspect he will go where his job takes them. As for Iles our 'esteemed' SPORTS journalist, he could be your younger brother for all I know but until he writes something about Holdsworth financial involvement whilst at the club (the information is already out there) and states something (anything!) factual that's negative about the ST's behaviour (their chairmen - Hurst and Bridge 'disappeared' without a mention from him, the failure to even hold their mandatory AGM one year, nor even a line about his professional bodies rebuke given to their current 'poster boy' and high vis spokesman, Roger Allanson - and which is in the public domain - indeed reported elsewhere in the Bolton News itself!) yet quotes them at every other available opportunity - indeed their statement was the very FIRST thing he posted after his holiday break last week - then you can not convince me - or all the other critics of him (which seem to be slowly but gradually increasing imo), that he is far from being impartial and reporting fairly without bias and taking sides. And if you really want to get me going his reporting and understanding of the last set of published accounts - and more to the point his tweets clearly inferring amongst other things that Anderson had only paid £150k for Holdsworth shares - which incensed the brain dead masses that clearly take what he says as gospel - and was the tipping point of the growing hatred of Anderson to turn into the toxicity it became - was scandalous and clearly not understood by him, let alone even researched and checked with anybody with a bit of knowledge about accountancy. Until he proves to report BOTH sides of a story, FAIRLY and without BIAS, then I for one will remain critical of him. And I certainly won't be alone in doing that either. Maybe he should stay with being the local SPORTS journalist and keep out of club and ST politics and giving his twopeneth of uninformed comments/tweets on accountancy. That is I believe fair comment about Mr Iles.
  10. I don't have any problems with statements changing as the process is a dynamic one and the strategy as given has not changed but the tactics of how to achieve it may have. Looking back in retrospect I guess purchasing the shares whilst awaiting the appointment of a receiver/cooling off period, then triggering the 14 day notice may not have produced such a certain outcome than purchasing the day before the court case and seeking a 14 day adjournment - because the two week notification would expire prior just in enough time to put the club in Admin (and thus force Ken's hand if required). So the later thinking - and change of execution - was deemed the better way forward. That's how I reasoned why things didn't quite go as Howard predicted them but it still fell within the strategy he's been predicting all along.
  11. Wouldn't that simply be explained as 'probably' isn't an exact statement (ie it includes the possibility that he might NOT be a football creditor) whilst Howards last statement being an exact one, a 'definite' (ie there are no football creditors even though I thought KA could have been a week ago but I now know that not to be the case). That's how I interpreted it.
  12. No I'm not. Everyone is free to post whatever they want on social media (within the law of course) it isn't for me question why they do. My post was an attempt to explain why someone like myself born before the world became enveloped by it, is more reserved about what they read on it, than perhaps the generations that have, do. Also hopefully to defuse the little bit of needle that perhaps as crept into things earlier in the day. Chris, I still use good old Anglo-Saxon vocabulary when I deem it appropriate - and of course 'words' never hurt you like 'sticks and stones' would, I merely attempted to explain that normal and somewhat understandable (at times) social media reaction may not be appropriate in certain individual cases. As for attempting 90 minutes on a pitch these days, I doubt I'd even manage those steps at Burnden leading up to the pitch, never mind play a full game!
  13. Chris is old school, like myself. From what I know of him he seems to have been brought up with many of the values I have and (this is the part I'm trying to make) how the world at the time have shaped and developed them within us. Back then communication was nothing like it was today, certainly no mobile phones, internet, social media, etc. My family didn't even have a home phone until I was in my late teens/early twenties because most of our friends and families also hadn't any either - its just how it was at that time. We relied for information basically from the BBC news on the TV or radio, the national press (Daily Mirror everyone read back then), the BEN, or gossip in the pub. Life's experience for many of us took a few knocks along the way when we discovered that nearly all of the gossip down the pub turned out to be just bollocks, and that there were other different ways of understanding news than from a Labour influenced paper, which had its own slant on things. So much so did our life experiences in that respect taught us that perhaps it manifests itself in us, in this modern day and age, into being extremely cautious what we read on social media (the equivalent of the man down the pub to us) and wanting to understand things from all sides of the argument (the equivalent of not just taking the Mirror as gospel - as many did back then) but to seek and question what we read. If you add to that how our working lives most probably shaped our behaviour (some had careers where an enquiring mind and attention to detail were more important to them than other professions) and put the two together then maybe you can begin to understand how some of us of a certain age and profession find it a little bit more difficult to be open to what we are told (not specifically you but the world in general) unless and until we have a good think and cogitation about things, pick them apart and put them back together again and feel happy that things are feasible or concerned if they are not. Even then we are probably more guarded and resistant to go all in until we have seen absolute proof - usually by seeing things with our own eyes. It's unfair on you (in this day and age of immediate access and response) to expect everything you say to be 100% correct - but by not being correct on some parts even minor ones (or even being right about them but expressing them perhaps poorly initially), it does trigger the response in some (including myself) to wonder if that bit isn't as we understand it should be, then what else may be questionable also? You have turned up out of the blue and provided us with all sorts of seemingly informed information - and of course we thank you for that - but of course the question in some of our minds is why? Yes you have explained yourself about this but some (including myself again) wonder if there is a bit more to it than that? As I say some of us are of a certain age now in a world that hasn't shaped us and which we probably distrust. Please forgive and tolerate our reservation, it isn't intended as a criticism, more like an inbuilt defensive mechanism that we've developed over the years. I'm sure everyone of including Chris and I want you to be right but perhaps we can only fully acknowledge you (and all you have done for us) when it actually happens. Please no more of the fuck yous and libel talk (if you could understand the dinosaurs that we are you would know that simply isn't relevant to us as we don't function in that way) and accept that no one can 'please all of the people all of the time' and tolerate as best you can that some healthy scepticism is actually a good thing in life. No insult or criticism of you or what you've said intended, you clearly know more about what is happening and why than I ever would, and irrespective of what reasons you are doing it for I obviously thank you and trust it will work out as you've predicted. I am sure Chris will thank you too, once it happens. (Obviously I don't speak for Chris - he's big enough to do that himself - I just wanted to try and explain how and why he probably views things as he does and I do).
  14. Thanks and ok. What have we learned today? - Team Howard seems to be proceeding down the path he predicted, namely the 'dark horse' potential new owner has bought the share ownership debt from Moonshift and have served Anderson a 14 day notice to take control of the club from him. This allows them to put the club into Administration before the next court date (as they would be the owners before then) and takes liquidation off the table. Ken has to play ball with them - as they have the capacity - the money, to fund Admin if he doesn't - and it is better for KA financially to do a deal now as he will get more than he would under Admin. - Team Nixon still seems to be firmly in the Basran camp - which if the 'dark horse' has already bought the debt and served notice - closes them off from doing a deal now. - and Team Iles is totally silent, meaning he either knows what is going on and is not allowed to say, or is clueless - I'll let you decide which it is. - A few revaluations also seemed to have been made today, namely that Howard is a lady (from Casino) which Howard refutes. That he drinks Cinzano, which hasn't been mentioned since the days of the famous TV ads of Leonard Rossiter and Joan Collins and also that he works in HR. Clearly he knows a tad about insolvency too. Lastly John Galt (who may or may not have been part of Team Basran) is off to somewhere warmer and that doesn't sell Holts beer - easily pleased then. - Lots of thanks and praise made to Howard for all his guidance and education over the last two weeks although one or two reasonably don't want to believe things until they see them for themselves. - Finally a return of Watsmore (and unfortunately again some casual racism) and from another the cringeworthy question in reference to a woman about HBAYT. Each to their own and all that, and who am I to judge anyone but haven't we moved on yet from that sort of humour now by now - most people find it awkward to read and not funny anymore. - But not to leave on a negative, we seem to be looking at a new owner being in place within a matter of days (maybe even in place for when the clubs wages are due), who apparently have a few quid behind them, enough at least to pay everyone off for now and give us financial stability at very long last. Fingers crossed.
  15. I don't know why you make it your mission to comment on whatever it is I post, as you certainly don't do it to anyone else. It's been going on for years, isn't it about time you packed it in?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.