Sweaty Ken

[Casino]

3 hours ago, MickyD said:

Can't find the offending post now. Maybe he's seen that I quoted him on here. If he did, he'll also see this:

Would you care to name the "more than a dozen" businesses he's lost?

He's full of shit

Apparently Ken was also banned from being a director for an 'unprecedented' ten years

He's an absolute cockend

 

[Carlos]

Selling dodgy motors... I think he's getting him mixed up with Arthur Daly   What a fucking loon.

[Sluffy]

I think to be fair there have been issues in Ken Anderson's past.

I've tried to provide links to such but have found it quite difficult to do so - maybe because of how far back these issues go - I believe even KA said recently that he refused to answer questions on things that happened twenty years ago!

Yes I have found a number of references and quotes about KA's propriety - the most damning being a statement  from Southampton Extraordinary General Meeting (link given below) of June 2006 - which states he was disqualified as a Director from October 2005 until 2013 - but even then the links it referred to - The Insolvency Services (link again provided below) -  does not actually leads back to anything definitive - again probably because these events date back so long ago now?

My conclusion to this being whatever he's been found guilty of at the time. as been punished, and have accordingly now been 'spent'.

I'm not trying to imply Mr Anderson is a saint but whatever he was found to have broken the rules on occurred sometime prior to 2005 - some thirteen years ago.

There's no proof that he's done anything untoward since then no matter how much the likes of Shortland or his ilk would desperately wish (or strongly imply) there to be.

As for Shortland's tweet above maybe he would wish it be brought to the attention of his employer/employees/clients/customers/colleagues/friends/family. etc for the next thirteen years or so just like he's doing in regards to Ken Anderson?  

Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones in the first place - particularly over something that happened over thirteen years ago?

For what it's worth I think the Shortland tweet now be removed from the site as I've never found two wrongs to ever equal one right.

Those links

https://www.investegate.co.uk/southampton-leisure--soo-/rns/egm-statement/200606260700531267F/

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency-service

 

 

 

[royal white]

2 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I think to be fair there have been issues in Ken Anderson's past.

I've tried to provide links to such but have found it quite difficult to do so - maybe because of how far back these issues go - I believe even KA said recently that he refused to answer questions on things that happened twenty years ago!

Yes I have found a number of references and quotes about KA's propriety - the most damning being a statement  from Southampton Extraordinary General Meeting (link given below) of June 2006 - which states he was disqualified as a Director from October 2005 until 2013 - but even then the links it referred to - The Insolvency Services (link again provided below) -  does not actually leads back to anything definitive - again probably because these events date back so long ago now?

My conclusion to this being whatever he's been found guilty of at the time. as been punished, and have accordingly now been 'spent'.

I'm not trying to imply Mr Anderson is a saint but whatever he was found to have broken the rules on occurred sometime prior to 2005 - some thirteen years ago.

There's no proof that he's done anything untoward since then no matter how much the likes of Shortland or his ilk would desperately wish (or strongly imply) there to be.

As for Shortland's tweet above maybe he would wish it be brought to the attention of his employer/employees/clients/customers/colleagues/friends/family. etc for the next thirteen years or so just like he's doing in regards to Ken Anderson?  

Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones in the first place - particularly over something that happened over thirteen years ago?

For what it's worth I think the Shortland tweet now be removed from the site as I've never found two wrongs to ever equal one right.

Those links

https://www.investegate.co.uk/southampton-leisure--soo-/rns/egm-statement/200606260700531267F/

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency-service

 

 

 

A lot of sense and good points there.

you do realise what forum you’re on don’t you? Good points and sense are very rarely spoken of on here 

[Wullie]

17 hours ago, Casino said:

He's full of shit

Apparently Ken was also banned from being a director for an 'unprecedented' ten years

He's an absolute cockend

 

8 years to be exact. I did post the three reasons he was banned for 8 years but can't find it now. But it was in the line of diverting funds receivable by a company into personal accounts, VAT discrepancies, and failure to cooperate with Receivers, all very serious offences. The bit about bankrupcies etc I am not too sure about.

 

[Casino]

So, not ten years and not unprecedented

If he would stick to facts rather than making stuff up, he would have a little credibility

As it is, he can be ripped to bits quicker than he can block people

[gonzo]

We had a chairman on trial and exposed on a bbc 1 panorama programme on prime time telly nobody batted an eyelid. 

Seems it’s ok to be dodgy when you’re winning. 

 

[MalcolmW]

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

We had a chairman on trial and exposed on a bbc 1 panorama programme on prime time telly nobody batted an eyelid. 

Seems it’s ok to be dodgy when you’re winning. 

 

To be fair to PG that was edited in such a way that answers he gave were to different questions than the ones he appeared to be answering. He wasn't best pleased about that.

As for KA, why would anyone buy a club from him when they can buy from someone with an unblemished record? That's a problem.

[Tombwfc]

6 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I think to be fair there have been issues in Ken Anderson's past.

I've tried to provide links to such but have found it quite difficult to do so - maybe because of how far back these issues go - I believe even KA said recently that he refused to answer questions on things that happened twenty years ago!

Yes I have found a number of references and quotes about KA's propriety - the most damning being a statement  from Southampton Extraordinary General Meeting (link given below) of June 2006 - which states he was disqualified as a Director from October 2005 until 2013 - but even then the links it referred to - The Insolvency Services (link again provided below) -  does not actually leads back to anything definitive - again probably because these events date back so long ago now?

My conclusion to this being whatever he's been found guilty of at the time. as been punished, and have accordingly now been 'spent'.

I'm not trying to imply Mr Anderson is a saint but whatever he was found to have broken the rules on occurred sometime prior to 2005 - some thirteen years ago.

There's no proof that he's done anything untoward since then no matter how much the likes of Shortland or his ilk would desperately wish (or strongly imply) there to be.

As for Shortland's tweet above maybe he would wish it be brought to the attention of his employer/employees/clients/customers/colleagues/friends/family. etc for the next thirteen years or so just like he's doing in regards to Ken Anderson?  

Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones in the first place - particularly over something that happened over thirteen years ago?

For what it's worth I think the Shortland tweet now be removed from the site as I've never found two wrongs to ever equal one right.

Those links

https://www.investegate.co.uk/southampton-leisure--soo-/rns/egm-statement/200606260700531267F/

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency-service

 

 

I don't know Shortland, or what the context of that Tweet is. He could be a massive Nazi for all I know. But both of those statements (watermelon smiles and letterboxes) are Boris Johnson gaffes, so I'd guess it was a sarcastic comment.

Seems a bit shit to make someone out to be a racist because they disgree with you about a football chairman, if that's the case.

 

[Sluffy]

1 hour ago, Tombwfc said:

 

I don't know Shortland, or what the context of that Tweet is. He could be a massive Nazi for all I know. But both of those statements (watermelon smiles and letterboxes) are Boris Johnson gaffes, so I'd guess it was a sarcastic comment.

Seems a bit shit to make someone out to be a racist because they disgree with you about a football chairman, if that's the case.

 

I've absolutely no idea whatsoever why you quoted me and said all that???

If you bothered to read my post in full - which clearly you haven't - you will see that I'm the one (the only one so far!) saying his twitter post screenshot posted on here above should be deleted!

If you've got a grievance, and clearly you have, then take it up with the person who posted the screen shot and not the one suggesting it should be taken down!

You're not the Tom who writes for the Lion of Vienna , who on their Twitter intro royally proclaimed 'Anderson's out' not so long back, by any chance?

(Another fine example impartiality from a would be reporter if you were!).

 

[Traf]

2 hours ago, Tombwfc said:

 

I don't know Shortland, or what the context of that Tweet is. He could be a massive Nazi for all I know. But both of those statements (watermelon smiles and letterboxes) are Boris Johnson gaffes, so I'd guess it was a sarcastic comment.

Seems a bit shit to make someone out to be a racist because they disgree with you about a football chairman, if that's the case.

 

Tom,

You probably don't know the back story, so I'll paraphrase...

Shortland tried to infer we were racists on here , by taking a post out of context and posting it on Twitter. I was showing how easy it is to retaliate.

[Casino]

19 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I've absolutely no idea whatsoever why you quoted me and said all that???

If you bothered to read my post in full - which clearly you haven't - you will see that I'm the one (the only one so far!) saying his twitter post screenshot posted on here above should be deleted!

If you've got a grievance, and clearly you have, then take it up with the person who posted the screen shot and not the one suggesting it should be taken down!

You're not the Tom who writes for the Lion of Vienna , who on their Twitter intro royally proclaimed 'Anderson's out' not so long back, by any chance?

(Another fine example impartiality from a would be reporter if you were!).

 

I don't think he is

That would be another tom...Mollloy  think

Who coincidentally gets stuff published by the Bolton very little news

[Tombwfc]

Sluffy - The reason I quoted your post was only because you seemed to be taking the tweet at face value. I've never written for the LOV, never intentionally been on the website, and rarely post about anything on Twitter. Not everything is a conspiracy.

 

Traf - I didn't know the back-story, and if it's part of a larger tit-for-tat between this site and Shortland, ok. I think there are fair points made by the people (including those on Twitter) who are critical of Anderson - I think he's been antagonistic, divisive and disingenuous in his blogs and I question whether he'd ever sell the club in a deal that didn't work for him personally. I also can accept what seems to be the majority view of this board - that he's a necessary evil and keeping the club going by hook or by crook. I don't think things need to get personal between fans over this, but then this one in particular isn't my battle.

[Sluffy]

8 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

Sluffy - The reason I quoted your post was only because you seemed to be taking the tweet at face value. I've never written for the LOV, never intentionally been on the website, and rarely post about anything on Twitter. Not everything is a conspiracy.

 

Traf - I didn't know the back-story, and if it's part of a larger tit-for-tat between this site and Shortland, ok. I think there are fair points made by the people (including those on Twitter) who are critical of Anderson - I think he's been antagonistic, divisive and disingenuous in his blogs and I question whether he'd ever sell the club in a deal that didn't work for him personally. I also can accept what seems to be the majority view of this board - that he's a necessary evil and keeping the club going by hook or by crook. I don't think things need to get personal between fans over this, but then this one in particular isn't my battle.

Eh???

You admit you didn't know the back story but decided to jump all over me rather than the bloke who posted the screen shot of the tweet!!!

Pull the other one.

What's this new dig about 'not everything is a conspiracy'?

If you've got something to say, then feel free to say it.

Then when you do please explain how that fits with your last sentence about getting 'personal between fans'?

Thank you.

 

[Wullie]

14 hours ago, Casino said:

So, not ten years and not unprecedented

If he would stick to facts rather than making stuff up, he would have a little credibility

As it is, he can be ripped to bits quicker than he can block people

Correct. Shortland has a personal axe to grind for some reason, comes over as a bit of an arse. I personally have difficulty trusting our Ken however, he knows he would be on a HMRC watch list for past misdemeanors, I find it hard to believe he is that naive to not know that, most of our recent issues with HMRC is mainly to do with that rather then we are a football club and HMRC are getting more strict.

I'm still finding it hard to understand why he got involved with us for the longer term, and then why he says he is turning down offers (or non offers) when he cannot sustain us from a personal pot. But he is here now, and what is sure is without him we may not be here,  he also got rid of Holdsworth, whose motives seemed equally disputable.

[birch-chorley]

He’s only turning down offers from people who fail to prove that they have any cash available 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

He’s only turning down offers from people who fail to prove that they have any cash available 

 

People in a similar position to him!

[birch-chorley]

I guess so yes 

[Traf]

Tom,

are you suggesting that after his efforts so far, Ken should sell in a deal that doesn’t work for him?

[tomski]

57 minutes ago, Traf said:

Tom,

are you suggesting that after his efforts so far, Ken should sell in a deal that doesn’t work for him?

I realise this was for the other Tom but personally I couldn't care less if he makes a bean or loads providing we get the right owner. I suppose I side with if you can't run it then you should step aside but mainly the above

[Boothy]

1 hour ago, Traf said:

Tom,

are you suggesting that after his efforts so far, Ken should sell in a deal that doesn’t work for him?

Head banging against brick wall Gif would have been a more apt response.

[Carlos]

It’s really really fucking weird but this gang of ST arselickers seem to have gone to the trouble of matching accounts on here with Facebook and Twitter accounts. That’s Corbyn Momentum style politics. In the gutter. Borderline stalking.

[Traf]

They’re wired up differently to most of us.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Carlos said:

It’s really really fucking weird but this gang of ST arselickers seem to have gone to the trouble of matching accounts on here with Facebook and Twitter accounts. That’s Corbyn Momentum style politics. In the gutter. Borderline stalking.

Who are they?

[Tombwfc]

1 hour ago, Traf said:

Tom,

are you suggesting that after his efforts so far, Ken should sell in a deal that doesn’t work for him?

 

I don't think he should bankrupt himself, but nor do I think he's necessarily entitled to make millions out of a sale either. 

All we know from Ken is, we've had dozens of interested parties over the years. If one of those was a mad Arab billionaire they'd pay whatever and we'd all be happy, I get that. But it also seems hard to believe that none of them are prepared to put more money in than Ken, given he isn't prepared to put any money in. 

So that's what I'm suggesting. The last time we heard what the asking price for the club was, there was a decent chunk set aside for Ken. If there was an option for him to walk away and give the club to someone who couldn't inject millions, but would have us paying players on time, that's what I would mean by a 'deal that doesn't work for him' .