Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Take Over


Kane57

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I think you are over complicating this mate.

James GAVE the BWCT the money.

The BWCT is a charity - Registered Charity Number - 1090753 - and so can not make a loan as an investment as such - see link -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charities-detailed-guidance-notes/annex-iii-approved-charitable-investments-and-loans

So the money from BWCT was presumably 'loaned' interest free and paid to I guess to the hotel/club(?).

If the loan is repaid in full at the time when the club is taken over/exits Admin, then it also will be repaid interest free.

Nobody is making any money on the loan AND James will not be given it back from the BWCT or anywhere else.

 

I again take the opportunity to point out the complete randomness of Iles running the story in the first place - it wasn't even current news and was already stated as having happened by no less a person the Ken Anderson himself at the time - and a second complete act of randomness in Kevin Davies no less tweeting to this article (how many other Iles numerous articles he's filled over the last three years?) and seriously implying impropriety on behalf of the man most likely to be one of the next owners of the club and the man who the ST Board in a public forum strongly inferred wasn't good for the club or its continued existence.

Far too many coincidences to be random unconnected events in my mind.

Seems to me to be a sort of smear attempt to me - but that's simply my opinion - I'm not looking to get sued by anyone.

And for the record I've still not been able to track down the BWCT statement that prompted Iles to write his article setting up the chain of events over the last couple of days.

Sluffy says someone is over complicating something ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I think you are over complicating this mate.

James GAVE the BWCT the money.

The BWCT is a charity - Registered Charity Number - 1090753 - and so can not make a loan as an investment as such - see link -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charities-detailed-guidance-notes/annex-iii-approved-charitable-investments-and-loans

So the money from BWCT was presumably 'loaned' interest free and paid to I guess to the hotel/club(?).

If the loan is repaid in full at the time when the club is taken over/exits Admin, then it also will be repaid interest free.

Nobody is making any money on the loan AND James will not be given it back from the BWCT or anywhere else.

 

I again take the opportunity to point out the complete randomness of Iles running the story in the first place - it wasn't even current news and was already stated as having happened by no less a person the Ken Anderson himself at the time - and a second complete act of randomness in Kevin Davies no less tweeting to this article (how many other Iles numerous articles he's filled over the last three years?) and seriously implying impropriety on behalf of the man most likely to be one of the next owners of the club and the man who the ST Board in a public forum strongly inferred wasn't good for the club or its continued existence.

Far too many coincidences to be random unconnected events in my mind.

Seems to me to be a sort of smear attempt to me - but that's simply my opinion - I'm not looking to get sued by anyone.

And for the record I've still not been able to track down the BWCT statement that prompted Iles to write his article setting up the chain of events over the last couple of days.

Nice one - thank you.

Edited by Matthew1234
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ani said:

Sluffy says someone is over complicating something ? 

:D

There is a little bit of a difference in understanding something complicated (which I attempt to do and explain things the best I can to others, so they can better understand stuff too) and complicating something that is relatively straight forward that really isn't as complicated as they think it might be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

:D

There is a little bit of a difference in understanding something complicated (which I attempt to do and explain things the best I can to others, so they can better understand stuff too) and complicating something that is relatively straight forward that really isn't as complicated as they think it might be.

 

😁 a bit like that explanation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

My guess, based on the fact Ken didn’t put any serious money in (that he didn’t then quickly take back out) but he still ended up being a large creditor when the administrators came in 

Of course new owners won’t be faced with anything like that sort of wage bill, we are in administration with -12 points and have no players. Are you saying that’s a better place to be in than we were in 2016? 

However, for what it’s worth, I recall a huge amount of contracts running out in the summer of 2016, the £12m wage bill will have a decent number of Ken’s signings in it no doubt 

What was our wage bill at the end of Ken’s time here? £800k a month? Circa £10m a year, not massively different to the wage bill he inherited 

 

The accounts show that the wages were in fact £18.5m when Holdsworth Anderson took over the club, fell to £12.6m the following year, would have decreased again the next season with the likes of Pratley no longer being on our books.  With Amos no longer being on board and hardly anyone contracted for next season, the wage bill will I suggest to be considerably lower again.  So just looking at things in black and white then yes I suggest a fall of around £12m on wages is what was achieved under his time as owner.

What Chris is trying to say in simple terms is that the sums don't add up if we are to believe the figures stated by Howard/Iles/Nixon to be correct ie £25m of unsecured debtors.

For them to get to that level of debt it would mean people providing goods and services - knowing the club can't pay its way (numerous winding up petitions/player strike pre-season as payments hadn't been made/suppliers (Heathcote for instance) withdrawing services/etc, etc) and NOT ensuring they would get payment by taking security against assets.  Who would do that?

Chris is also saying that the running costs for the last published accounts (30th June 17) shows a debit of just short of £7m (£6.9m) for cost of sales and administration and that even if those costs were squoze even further, there would still be a deficit of several millions alone on 'running' the club that WOULD have been covered in the following year by Madine's sale but would leave a deficit for THIS year, which has meant we simply ran out of money.

It's not a question of whose side are you on, it is a simple matter of economics - the club cost more to run than what it was earning.

Any prospective buyer seeing the books would see that, and if we strip out the fantasies of Ron Billionaire, the Bahraini Royal family and the Chinese State buying us, then all the other realistic people wanting to buy us would know that and either try to strike a deal with Ken at a rate similar to what they would expect to pick the club up for from Admin, to which no doubt Ken told them to buy it from Admin then.

Basically it is as simple as that.  

That's the reality of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

My guess, based on the fact Ken didn’t put any serious money in (that he didn’t then quickly take back out) but he still ended up being a large creditor when the administrators came in 

Of course new owners won’t be faced with anything like that sort of wage bill, we are in administration with -12 points and have no players. Are you saying that’s a better place to be in than June 2016? 

However, for what it’s worth, I recall a huge amount of contracts running out in the summer of 2016, the £12m wage bill will have a decent number of Ken’s signings in it no doubt 

What was our wage bill at the end of Ken’s time here? £800k a month? Circa £10m a year, not massively different to the wage bill he inherited 

 

 

Run this by me again. He hasn't put any serious money but ended up being a large creditor?

How does that work?

The administrators haven't actually come up with any figures yet  but when they do we''ll know whether he put in £4.4m, £5m or c.£8m as Howard reported. Whatever it was, it wasn't out of the kindness of his heart or the lifetime devotion of Mr and Mrs Ken Anderson to BWFC  but who in their right mind would think it should be? And, of course, whatever the figure its money he borrowed and will be obliged to repay.

As for the wages, he inherited players with two, three and four year contracts and tried to get the big ones re-negotiated but where he couldn't was stuck with it until they all ran out. What he also tried to do was to keep the academy going and allow the manager to try to recruit players that would first regain and then maintain Championship status. It was a tall ask with the limited funds avaiable but for two years it worked (just). Not for a third..

He came in with a completely useless partner who made an already difficult task even more demanding but in the end he failed to find a buyer willing to take it on as a going concern and those that pilloried him from day one must have been very pleased- or were they?

No-one thinks Ken Anderson is a saint and no we are not in a better position. We might have been if KA had managed to pull off a minor miracle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

Along with 'Ruined in a day', although it was over a larger period of time.

Lots of confusion, bit of regret... It's all gone green!

That's where power, corruption and lies gets you.

Edited by Marc505
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

:D

There is a little bit of a difference in understanding something complicated (which I attempt to do and explain things the best I can to others, so they can better understand stuff too) and complicating something that is relatively straight forward that really isn't as complicated as they think it might be.

 

I don't know about you, Sluffy, but reading WW sometimes reminds me of primary school all those years ago. When the teacher  asked a question the bright kids would only put  their hands up when they knew the answer. But there were kids who never got anything right and rarely understood the question but would shoot their hands up on every conceivable occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/06/2019 at 16:26, Mannyroader said:

Sacre bleu!! Cantona n'est pas?

apparently, nobody in France actually says sacre bleu. Became a bit of a running joke with the locals on a recent trip over there.

(so, in better news, now some of them do)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I don't know about you, Sluffy, but reading WW sometimes reminds me of primary school all those years ago. When the teacher  asked a question the bright kids would only put  their hands up when they knew the answer. But there were kids who never got anything right and rarely understood the question but would shoot their hands up on every conceivable occasion.

To be fair it isn't always easy to understand the financial side of stuff when you aren't particularly interested in it in the first place or fully believe stuff from others (Iles/Nixon/Howard) that don't seem to hold up when the numbers are scrutinised.

There is also those who have spent the last three years calling Ken a crook and they certainly don't want to be shown to be wrong because the numbers don't seem to be adding up in the way they would have wished them to do.

However I think we might approaching the tipping point though, where people now might begin to accept the demise of the club is more to do with the economics of the situation - with the club spending more than it has been earning - with the money finally running out this season - rather than Anderson having raped and pillaged it from day one.

People still seem to like shooting the messengers though so I expect the usual suspects will be trolling us for a long time to come yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I don't know about you, Sluffy, but reading WW sometimes reminds me of primary school all those years ago. When the teacher  asked a question the bright kids would only put  their hands up when they knew the answer. But there were kids who never got anything right and rarely understood the question but would shoot their hands up on every conceivable occasion.

Fuck mop, the Eton Rifles are here! 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I don't know about you, Sluffy, but reading WW sometimes reminds me of primary school all those years ago. When the teacher  asked a question the bright kids would only put  their hands up when they knew the answer. But there were kids who never got anything right and rarely understood the question but would shoot their hands up on every conceivable occasion.

Don’t fucking read it then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I don't know about you, Sluffy, but reading WW sometimes reminds me of primary school all those years ago. When the teacher  asked a question the bright kids would only put  their hands up when they knew the answer. But there were kids who never got anything right and rarely understood the question but would shoot their hands up on every conceivable occasion.

Fuck me, you'll have to do better than that. 

when this thread is done and the club is bought, thread disappeared . I look forward to seeing your posts on football topics.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I don't know about you, Sluffy, but reading WW sometimes reminds me of primary school all those years ago. When the teacher  asked a question the bright kids would only put  their hands up when they knew the answer. But there were kids who never got anything right and rarely understood the question but would shoot their hands up on every conceivable occasion.

Roughly translated as- “aren’t all the posters on this forum stupid, apart from you and i sluffy?” Jesus wept

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I don't know about you, Sluffy, but reading WW sometimes reminds me of primary school all those years ago. When the teacher  asked a question the bright kids would only put  their hands up when they knew the answer. But there were kids who never got anything right and rarely understood the question but would shoot their hands up on every conceivable occasion.

Ha 

Says the bloke who probably laughs to himself every time typing the beeno (still not sure how you arrived at that one) or simple Simon 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken Anderson has had a number of criticisms directed at him over the last few years but I didn't call him a crook . Sure it was often suggested that he "might be up to his old tricks" but that was always with the disclaimer that until we know the facts - which we still don't - it is no more than a suspicion. 

That said other criticisms directed at him seem to have turned out to be true including:

  • failure to introduce new investment and/or not having a clue how to turn the business around whilst running at a loss would inevitably lead to the point when the club ran out of money - which it appears to have done
  • adopting a strategy of cutting the wage bill and supplementing other areas of the business with the sale of our best talent would inevitably lead to failure on the pitch and relegation  - which it certainly has done and how that can be dressed up as an "achievement " (Sluffy!) is beyond me.

We are still awaiting the outcome of the inquest into Anderson's tenure until we can see what club net assets he is selling on compared to the net assets of the club when he inherited them so it would be rash to draw any conclusions at this stage. Won't stop me thinking he's a self interested incompetent tosspot who doesn't give a monkey's about BWFC for now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
56 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Don’t fucking read it then.

Edward, if we ever see another set of accounts covering the KA years, will you do your stuff on it

Even at this stage, do you have a gut feel for how KA has done out of BWFC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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