Sweaty Ken

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Casino said:

Firth turned up for less games than Chris taylor

I'm not sure that is possible

[RONNIE PHILLIPS]

On 02/11/2018 at 22:20, boltondiver said:

What do you mean?

I was having a pop at Iles not you mate.

[Chris Custodiet]

I see Isles has published last week's delayed wage payment in the BN and that Suffolkwhite is the first to comment. I'll swear he sets his alarm clock early so he can hate Ken Anderson for an hour longer each day. But it would be worrying if there were major cash flow issues this early in the season.

[Bridger]

Cashflow will be a issue there is next to nothing income wise  for home tickets very few without ST going to games.

[bwfcfan5]

15 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

 

 Here''s another of Firth's recent efforts to malign Anderson

''This man knows his onions. Give him a follow.

Ian Firth added,

GWB29 @GBower1877

#bwfc has a sole director and he is paid amongst the highest in England, despite the club having recently been on the brink of an insolvency event followed days later by another HMRC petition. This excludes what has been paid to his family. https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1057541387854454785 …

1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes''

 

Knows his onions does he? He also knows that BluMarble appointed a liquidator of Sports Shield BWFC in 2017 to get their money back and that Anderson needed to find the money to buy them off and prevent 'an insolvency event' and a12-point deduction at the beginning of the 2017/18 season. Last match win against Forest would have been a total irelevance if he hadn't.

 

So where did the money come from? You've got two guesses:

1. Patricia's retirement saver account OR

2. Kenneth's consultancy fee.

 

This lot are trying to make out that the consultancy fee went into Anderson's pocket when they know that it didn't.

Btw whilst Firth was  cosying up to Iles, Holdsworth was getting a bit  too close for Ken''s liking to the Supporters Trust. You might just wonder why the ST and the BN have been coy about the cost to BWFC of Holdsworth's 50p 'investment'.

Iles and the ST bought hook line and sinker every word Holdsworth gave them. At the time it was obvious. And its clear that is where much of the dislike for KA stems from. However, Holdsworth had no ability and no plan to finance the club. People think its bad now....imagine were Holdsworth still involved where we'd be?

[Chris Custodiet]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Iles and the ST bought hook line and sinker every word Holdsworth gave them. At the time it was obvious. And its clear that is where much of the dislike for KA stems from. However, Holdsworth had no ability and no plan to finance the club. People think its bad now....imagine were Holdsworth still involved where we'd be?

It may have been obvious to some but I don't think it was obvious to everyone. Its almost exactly two years ago that I realised that there was something definitely not right about the relationship between Holdsworth and the ST and, as a corollary, the attitude of the ST to Anderson.

 There was though little room for doubt in my mind, long  before the ludicrously named 'Sports Shield consortium' takeover, that Holdsworth had scarcely any relevant expertise or personal wealth. Replacing Holdsworth as CEO of BWFC and getting in someone capable of doing the job had to be top priority for Anderson but it was to cost the club around one million pounds for Anderson to finally gain full control. It was expenditure the club could ill afford but the money had to be found and it largely seems to have been to the detriment of supplier creditors.

The ST has kept stum on all of this blaming every problem on Anderson whilst the BN rarely seems to lose an opportunity to stir the pot in its anti-Anderson attitude.

By the same token, for years the BN  turned a blind eye to the monumental sums provided by Eddie Davies whilst only a few weeks ago Iles was telling BN readers, daft enough to believe it, that Gordon Hargreaves funded the building of the Reebok. The Reebok, for the record, was built on borrowed money and it was  Eddie Davies that repaid it (and a lot more besides).

Edited November 5, 2018 by Chris Custodiet

[bwfcfan5]

13 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

It may have been obvious to some but I don't think it was obvious to everyone. Its almost exactly two years ago that I realised that there was something definitely not right about the relationship between Holdsworth and the ST and, as a corollary, the attitude of the ST to Anderson.

 There was though little room for doubt in my mind, long  before the ludicrously named 'Sports Shield consortium' takeover, that Holdsworth had scarcely any relevant expertise or personal wealth. Replacing Holdsworth as CEO of BWFC and getting in someone capable of doing the job had to be top priority for Anderson but it was to cost the club around one million pounds for Anderson to finally gain full control. It was expenditure the club could ill afford but the money had to be found and it largely seems to have been to the detriment of supplier creditors.

The ST has kept stum on all of this blaming every problem on Anderson whilst the BN rarely seems to lose an opportunity to stir the pot in its anti-Anderson attitude.

By the same token, for years the BN  turned a blind eye to the monumental sums provided by Eddie Davies whilst only a few weeks ago Iles was telling BN readers, daft enough to believe it, that Gordon Hargreaves funded the building of the Reebok. The Reebok, for the record, was built on borrowed money and it was  Eddie Davies that repaid it (and a lot more besides).

There is a fair point here. Not long ago the BN and Iles were running with "how did BWFC end up in such debt" "why has so much money been wasted" and campaigning for the future to be "sustainable". Ken is doing that. No mention from Iles that this is the reality of being sustainble. Just demands for more money - the very thing he was bemoaning previously. 

[Ghana White]

Pretty sure I've asked this before but didn't Bolton council fuck up the move to the Reebok for us and cause the debt?

[Duck Egg]

My memory of the period when we moved is a little hazy but it surprises me that we put ourselves into a large debt when we moved.  The narrative of the time was that we had to move, we had owned this land in Horwich for years and the Football Trust (?) were providing funds towards the cost.

There was some controversy about the project not going to tender and the contract being given to Hargreaves or some directors firm because "it wasn't worth going to tender, we already had the expertise"

[Chris Custodiet]

46 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

There is a fair point here. Not long ago the BN and Iles were running with "how did BWFC end up in such debt" "why has so much money been wasted" and campaigning for the future to be "sustainable". Ken is doing that. No mention from Iles that this is the reality of being sustainble. Just demands for more money - the very thing he was bemoaning previously.  

Not sure Ken's making it sustainable so much as driving down cost, where he can, to reduce the level of recurring losses. Ken's is a holding role until he can find someone with deep pockets to move it forward. BN numpties seem to think that's like shelling peas. It isn't but its bound to be easier than it was with Holdsworth on board.

[Chris Custodiet]

37 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

My memory of the period when we moved is a little hazy but it surprises me that we put ourselves into a large debt when we moved.  The narrative of the time was that we had to move, we had owned this land in Horwich for years and the Football Trust (?) were providing funds towards the cost.

There was some controversy about the project not going to tender and the contract being given to Hargreaves or some directors firm because "it wasn't worth going to tender, we already had the expertise"

My recollection is that it was intended to be self-funding. I didn't follow it closely at the time but there were obviously a number of issues, including planning and delay in disposing of the Burnden site. Eddie Davies arrived on the scene in 1999 after the flotation had flopped and the Reebok debt was causing a problem.

[Carlos]

18 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

the ST and the BN have been coy about the cost to BWFC of Holdsworth's 50p 'investment'.

 

The ST have been more than just coy, they've said fuck all of any relevance for a very very long time (if ever).

Who even are they now? Indeed, does anyone even care? The last AGM looked like 100 people max having pie and peas 

[bwfcfan5]

58 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Not sure Ken's making it sustainable so much as driving down cost, where he can, to reduce the level of recurring losses. Ken's is a holding role until he can find someone with deep pockets to move it forward. BN numpties seem to think that's like shelling peas. It isn't but its bound to be easier than it was with Holdsworth on board.

Well yes, I use sustainable loosely. But if Iles was saying we couldn't be reliant on handouts from an owner then the subtext of such a notion is "reducing costs". 

[Walkden White]

Must admit I'm completely baffled by our finances.

If the salary issue shows we have cash flow issues then it is worrying.

I remember when we sold Madine that at the time it was stated we didn't need to sell so my natural assumption was that funds were in place to run the club without the fee. My further assumption was that this would either ease cash flow or be used to pay off Blue Marble. Seems I was wrong on both counts.

[kobeer]

14 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

My recollection is that it was intended to be self-funding. I didn't follow it closely at the time but there were obviously a number of issues, including planning and delay in disposing of the Burnden site. Eddie Davies arrived on the scene in 1999 after the flotation had flopped and the Reebok debt was causing a problem. 

I recall that one of the issues around the sale of Burnden was a change in planning laws for out of town retail. The upshot was the land was worth less than BWFC's advisers originally thought.

There wasn't actually a floatation. Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company Ltd merged with Mosaic Investments. Mosaic were already listed on the London Stock Exchange and BWFC shareholders received shares in Mosaic (who then changed their name to Burnden Leisure).

Anyone buying Burnden Leisure shareholders bought them from existing shareholders - there were no new shares and so money paid went to whoever was selling their shares in the marjet and not to BWFC.

Mosaic had sold all their businesses (providing optics to the license trade) and had a £10m cash pile.  The original plan was to only fit out some of the suites at the Reebok but the £10m meant they fitted the whole stadium out.

NB the biggest shareholder in BWFC at the time of the merger was the family who (then) owned Gordon's of Bolton.

[bwfcfan5]

17 minutes ago, Walkden White said:

Must admit I'm completely baffled by our finances.

If the salary issue shows we have cash flow issues then it is worrying.

I remember when we sold Madine that at the time it was stated we didn't need to sell so my natural assumption was that funds were in place to run the club without the fee. My further assumption was that this would either ease cash flow or be used to pay off Blue Marble. Seems I was wrong on both counts.

The business still loses money....and it has been stated by Ken only made a very small profit because of the sale of Madine. So take ~5M out and we're going to go back to being loss making by about ~3M per annum. Unless we've reduced costs by a similar amount, which seems unlikely. Ken sees this as one of the lowest losses in the championship, which is true. But we have nobody to absorb these losses on an ongoing basis and not many sellable assets within the squad (one wouldn't think). 

Edited November 5, 2018 by bwfcfan5

[Walkden White]

2 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

The business still loses money....and it has been stated by Ken only made a very small profit because of the sale of Madine. So take ~5M out and we're going to go back to being loss making by about ~3M per annum. Unless we've reduced costs by a similar amount, which seems unlikely. Ken sees this as one of the lowest losses in the championship, which is true. But we have nobody to absorb these losses on an ongoing basis and not many sellable assets within the squad (one wouldn't think). 

Doesn't bear thinking about what would have happened without the Madine sale 

[Mounts Kipper]

14 minutes ago, Walkden White said:

Doesn't bear thinking about what would have happened without the Madine sale 

Give it 6 months you might find out. 

[Chris Custodiet]

31 minutes ago, kobeer said:

I recall that one of the issues around the sale of Burnden was a change in planning laws for out of town retail. The upshot was the land was worth less than BWFC's advisers originally thought.

There wasn't actually a floatation. Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company Ltd merged with Mosaic Investments. Mosaic were already listed on the London Stock Exchange and BWFC shareholders received shares in Mosaic (who then changed their name to Burnden Leisure).

Anyone buying Burnden Leisure shareholders bought them from existing shareholders - there were no new shares and so money paid went to whoever was selling their shares in the marjet and not to BWFC.

Mosaic had sold all their businesses (providing optics to the license trade) and had a £10m cash pile.  The original plan was to only fit out some of the suites at the Reebok but the £10m meant they fitted the whole stadium out.

NB the biggest shareholder in BWFC at the time of the merger was the family who (then) owned Gordon's of Bolton.

Agreed. It wasn't a flotation as such but it meant that the shares were quoted and could be bought on the Stock Exchange. By flopped, I meant that the share price plummeted.
You are obviously well-informed. Were you,  by any chance, at the shareholders AGM this year? One shareholder asked Ken about the present position on the development opportunities at the Middlebrook that had been mooted around the time he bought his shares. Another complained that he had lost around 900,000 pounds. He didn't say that the shares had cost him 10,000 and that they had shot up  like a rocket at the time of the merger only to fall like a stick not long afterwards.

[kobeer]

2 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Agreed. It wasn't a flotation as such but it meant that the shares were quoted and could be bought on the Stock Exchange. By flopped, I meant that the share price plummeted.
You are obviously well-informed. Were you,  by any chance, at the shareholders AGM this year? One shareholder asked Ken about the present position on the development opportunities at the Middlebrook that had been mooted around the time he bought his shares. Another complained that he had lost around 900,000 pounds. He didn't say that the shares had cost him 10,000 and that they had shot up  like a rocket at the time of the merger only to fall like a stick not long afterwards.

No I wasn't at the AGM this year. I was a stockbroker at the time of the merger and took loads of execution only orders to buy shares - many were placed at 97p on the 1st day of trading - I don't think they saw that price again. I bought about £500 worth as a punt, sold at a small profit before we played Chelsea on the last day of the season when we got relegated. I remember walking away from Stamford Bridge and hearing a kid (about 10) asking his Dad "Would we still come watching if we were relegated?" - Bloody spoilt some kids.

Foolishly bought another £500 worth but then the fad of football clubs listing and being considered an investment was surpassed by the dot com boom. I remember Phil Gartside saying at one AGM "you can't make a football club a dot com". Burnden moved from a full listing to AIM (Alternative Investment Market) and then de-listed altogether. Shareholders eventually received a letter from HMRC stating that the shares had been declared valueless.

Before the merger it would have been impossible for BWFC shareholders to put a value on their shares - they were worth what anyone was prepared to pay.  When the shares became quoted a lot of people, who may have been a shareholder for generations, suddenly saw an official value. The quoted price of shares is only good for a certain amount. For a small company like Burnden Leisure you could have only sold a few thousand pounds worth for the quoted price. Wouldn't have been able to sell £900k (or more) in one go anyway.  

Lesson is football clubs are not generally a good investment - yes KA might eventually make a good profit but we don't need an investor. we need someone who has the ability and desire to give away a load of money!

[Sweep]

I remember people claiming that ED had robbed them of their shares.....clearly they weren't very bright people

[Casino]

1 hour ago, kobeer said:

I recall that one of the issues around the sale of Burnden was a change in planning laws for out of town retail. The upshot was the land was worth less than BWFC's advisers originally thought.

There wasn't actually a floatation. Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company Ltd merged with Mosaic Investments. Mosaic were already listed on the London Stock Exchange and BWFC shareholders received shares in Mosaic (who then changed their name to Burnden Leisure).

Anyone buying Burnden Leisure shareholders bought them from existing shareholders - there were no new shares and so money paid went to whoever was selling their shares in the marjet and not to BWFC.

Mosaic had sold all their businesses (providing optics to the license trade) and had a £10m cash pile.  The original plan was to only fit out some of the suites at the Reebok but the £10m meant they fitted the whole stadium out.

NB the biggest shareholder in BWFC at the time of the merger was the family who (then) owned Gordon's of Bolton.

gordon seymours family

[Casino]

27 minutes ago, kobeer said:

No I wasn't at the AGM this year. I was a stockbroker at the time of the merger and took loads of execution only orders to buy shares - many were placed at 97p on the 1st day of trading - I don't think they saw that price again. I bought about £500 worth as a punt, sold at a small profit before we played Chelsea on the last day of the season when we got relegated. I remember walking away from Stamford Bridge and hearing a kid (about 10) asking his Dad "Would we still come watching if we were relegated?" - Bloody spoilt some kids.

Foolishly bought another £500 worth but then the fad of football clubs listing and being considered an investment was surpassed by the dot com boom. I remember Phil Gartside saying at one AGM "you can't make a football club a dot com". Burnden moved from a full listing to AIM (Alternative Investment Market) and then de-listed altogether. Shareholders eventually received a letter from HMRC stating that the shares had been declared valueless.

Before the merger it would have been impossible for BWFC shareholders to put a value on their shares - they were worth what anyone was prepared to pay.  When the shares became quoted a lot of people, who may have been a shareholder for generations, suddenly saw an official value. The quoted price of shares is only good for a certain amount. For a small company like Burnden Leisure you could have only sold a few thousand pounds worth for the quoted price. Wouldn't have been able to sell £900k (or more) in one go anyway.  

Lesson is football clubs are not generally a good investment - yes KA might eventually make a good profit but we don't need an investor. we need someone who has the ability and desire to give away a load of money!

think they were in the 37-40p region at relegation

when eddie bought em, they were worthless

[Chris Custodiet]

2 hours ago, Sweep said:

I remember people claiming that ED had robbed them of their shares.....clearly they weren't very bright people

Read the BN comments page and you'd think Bolton was awash with not very bright people. But there were criticisms at the 2003 AGM from folk who you'd think would know better and there were still folk at this years AGM who thought that the Davies loan was significantly inflated by interest. It wasn't, the re-invested interest was only about 15million of the 185million.

[Chris Custodiet]

18 hours ago, kobeer said:

No I wasn't at the AGM this year. I was a stockbroker at the time of the merger and took loads of execution only orders to buy shares - many were placed at 97p on the 1st day of trading - I don't think they saw that price again. I bought about £500 worth as a punt, sold at a small profit before we played Chelsea on the last day of the season when we got relegated. I remember walking away from Stamford Bridge and hearing a kid (about 10) asking his Dad "Would we still come watching if we were relegated?" - Bloody spoilt some kids.

Foolishly bought another £500 worth but then the fad of football clubs listing and being considered an investment was surpassed by the dot com boom. I remember Phil Gartside saying at one AGM "you can't make a football club a dot com". Burnden moved from a full listing to AIM (Alternative Investment Market) and then de-listed altogether. Shareholders eventually received a letter from HMRC stating that the shares had been declared valueless.

Before the merger it would have been impossible for BWFC shareholders to put a value on their shares - they were worth what anyone was prepared to pay.  When the shares became quoted a lot of people, who may have been a shareholder for generations, suddenly saw an official value. The quoted price of shares is only good for a certain amount. For a small company like Burnden Leisure you could have only sold a few thousand pounds worth for the quoted price. Wouldn't have been able to sell £900k (or more) in one go anyway.   

Lesson is football clubs are not generally a good investment - yes KA might eventually make a good profit but we don't need an investor. we need someone who has the ability and desire to give away a load of money!

The guy complaining could have got his 10,000 back if he'd done what Gerald Hayes (Tales of a Wanderer) did. He transferred a few shares to his wife and sold enough to use up the annual CGT exemption of the two of them.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Chris Custodiet