Take Over

[Matthew1234]

Perhaps dramatic but I do think a takeover, with any party, needs to be sorted in the next week or two if we stand any chance. With pre season right around the corner, we are painfully close to chaos next season and losing some of our better youth products. 

I hope whatever is happening behind the scenes is sorted speedily. I think Marc Iles was trying to hint in his article that the holdup was not directly linked to the takeover itself, which could mean it's a more personal issue. I just hope we can see a resolution soon as time really is of the essence. 

[sleepingindian]

5 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

Perhaps dramatic but I do think a takeover, with any party, needs to be sorted in the next week or two if we stand any chance. With pre season right around the corner, we are painfully close to chaos next season and losing some of our better youth products. 

I hope whatever is happening behind the scenes is sorted speedily. I think Marc Iles was trying to hint in his article that the holdup was not directly linked to the takeover itself, which could mean it's a more personal issue. I just hope we can see a resolution soon as time really is of the essence. 

hopefully fv have a pre plan.to get things going

 

[Mounts Kipper]

3 hours ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

Mounts, from your many posts on this forum you come across as a decent bloke & a passionate, loyal BWFC fan. This being the case I really can't fathom your staunch defence of a flawed if not fundamentally undemocratic & corrupt ST.... especially given your stance on the EU referendum vote. 

For me A ST yes please, this ST no thank you sir. Please don't suggest trying to change it from within because these self elected & self appeasing lot have no interest in representing your average Bolton fan. The only way for most Bolton fans would be a new & accountable representative body. 

Thanks for the kind words. While I don’t think the ST is perfect and they’ve definitely made mistakes I would not call them corrupt, what evidence is there of corruption?  Any ST has to abide by a set of legal rules and regulations so I find it difficult to believe that there is any foundation to these accusations, if there are then let’s hear it.

If there was ever any evidence I’d be first to call it out for what it is, and if it was found to be the case then the whole trust board should be removed.

Sadly a large number of fans seem to believe that what you have said is true and so I struggle to see how the trust can continue, if that ever does happen then BWFC will sadly be left with no safety net should we end up in the worse case scenario.

A safety net is the reason I want the trust to succeed be that with the current board or a completely new board. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Daveh]

5 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Which proves that there's more than one idiot in the village

Wow. It’s no wonder internet forums get such a bad reputation when insults like this are thrown around when all I have done is offered an opinion.

Safe to say I’m out of here, as I was mistakenly led to believe this was one of the more sensible forums. I generally don’t read them at all but thought I had come across one that was better than the rest.

Maybe it’s just one bad egg with this Custodiet character, but it’s only confirmed my suspicions all along.

I just thank my lucky stars that he/she hasn’t got a season ticket next to me, and I don’t have to sit next to them!!!! 

Dont bother replying as I won’t be back to read whatever any belittling reply you dream up 🙄🙄

 

 

 

[Take Hunt Off]

21 minutes ago, Daveh said:

Wow. It’s no wonder internet forums get such a bad reputation when insults like this are thrown around when all I have done is offered an opinion.

Safe to say I’m out of here, as I was mistakenly led to believe this was one of the more sensible forums. I generally don’t read them at all but thought I had come across one that was better than the rest.

Maybe it’s just one bad egg with this Custodiet character, but it’s only confirmed my suspicions all along.

I just thank my lucky stars that he/she hasn’t got a season ticket next to me, and I don’t have to sit next to them!!!! 

Dont bother replying as I won’t be back to read whatever any belittling reply you dream up 🙄🙄

 

 

 

You need a thicker skin mate .Stick around old custard face has had plenty stick on here & has been called out many times but does'nt stop posting .

[birch-chorley]

12 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

If you 'understand the business side', would you be good enough to just take a small amount of time and explain to everyone on WW how the club managed to keep going until the end of January 2018 without the money from the sale of Gary Madine?

I know that there are a lot who aren't interested but there are some of us that are.

By not paying any suppliers perhaps? If you don’t pay your suppliers then it will help you keep going 

Could have also mortgaged against future income? 

Fuck knows how the can was licked down the road but it was and the debt got bigger paying dozens of shit players good money 

[RONNIE PHILLIPS]

45 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Thanks for the kind words. While I don’t think the ST is perfect and they’ve definitely made mistakes I would not call them corrupt, what evidence is there of corruption?  Any ST has to abide by a set of legal rules and regulations so I find it difficult to believe that there is any foundation to these accusations, if there are then let’s hear it.

If there was ever any evidence I’d be first to call it out for what it is, and if it was found to be the case then the whole trust board should be removed.

Sadly a large number of fans seem to believe that what you have said is true and so I struggle to see how the trust can continue, if that ever does happen then BWFC will sadly be left with no safety net should we end up in the worse case scenario.

A safety net is the reason I want the trust to succeed be that with the current board or a completely new board. 

As Casino alluded to their attitude to Co opted members is startling given their as yet unfounded allegations of Anderson (this in no way a defence of KA btw), I really meant morally corrupt. 

[RONNIE PHILLIPS]

51 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Thanks for the kind words. While I don’t think the ST is perfect and they’ve definitely made mistakes I would not call them corrupt, what evidence is there of corruption?  Any ST has to abide by a set of legal rules and regulations so I find it difficult to believe that there is any foundation to these accusations, if there are then let’s hear it.

If there was ever any evidence I’d be first to call it out for what it is, and if it was found to be the case then the whole trust board should be removed.

Sadly a large number of fans seem to believe that what you have said is true and so I struggle to see how the trust can continue, if that ever does happen then BWFC will sadly be left with no safety net should we end up in the worse case scenario.

A safety net is the reason I want the trust to succeed be that with the current board or a completely new board. 

I think most of us want a Supporters trust that we can buy into & who reflect our views... This lot just don't cut it I'm afraid. 

[Eavesy]

4 hours ago, Duck Egg said:

What's their 'agenda'?

It seems a pretty straightforward piece to me. Iles is as anxious as all of us for things to be resolved. I'm happy to do as he suggests, sit tight and wait without wanting a running commentary.

There have been multiple occasions when he’s jumped the gun and been wholly incorrect.

more often than not it’s been when he’s either sided with holdsworth of the ST.

Anderson spent half of his chairman notes exposing the inaccuracy of local media reports. (More often iles)

Mainly his causal usage of ‘not being paid’ when the players had been paid.

for example

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2019/april/a-note-from-the-chairman4/

 

Oh and his complete bullshit story he produced regarding Heathcote (where’s he these days?)

some random fire sale article (we had no decent player to sell)

Completely made up figures (probably sourced these form bower on twitter) on what Anderson paid for shares. 

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2019/january/a-note-from-the-chairman/

 

With regards agenda.

a quick google on Bolton news and fans letters would be a good starting point. The selection and publication of supposed letters sent in from ‘Bolton fans’ is just simply incredible. Border line LoV levels of journalism and credibility...

[Casino]

Agree with all the above and more, but on this occasion I back him

He knows what's going on and common courtesy demands he doesn't go to print

In the same way he didn't when PG was very ill

[Roger_Dubuis]

1 hour ago, Daveh said:

Wow. It’s no wonder internet forums get such a bad reputation when insults like this are thrown around when all I have done is offered an opinion.

Safe to say I’m out of here, as I was mistakenly led to believe this was one of the more sensible forums. I generally don’t read them at all but thought I had come across one that was better than the rest.

Maybe it’s just one bad egg with this Custodiet character, but it’s only confirmed my suspicions all along.

I just thank my lucky stars that he/she hasn’t got a season ticket next to me, and I don’t have to sit next to them!!!! 

Dont bother replying as I won’t be back to read whatever any belittling reply you dream up 🙄🙄

 

 

 

Although Eddie Davies owned the club and obviously allowed the spending, Chris prefers to blame other people for the club's Sky money being gambled and lost on poor footballers like Danny Shittu, Chris Eagles, Zat Knight and Ben Amos.

People like Marc Iles, Kevin Davies' wife, Sam Allardyce (honestly) and whoever is on the board at the Supporters Trust get Chris' wrath.He is either living in denial or isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer

[Boothy]

1 hour ago, Casino said:

Agree with all the above and more, but on this occasion I back him

He knows what's going on and common courtesy demands he doesn't go to print

In the same way he didn't when PG was very ill

How come this bereavement delays things so much? Genuine question. I would have expected the crux of the work at this stage to be undertaken by solicitors etc..

[Ani]

7 hours ago, Boothy said:

How come this bereavement delays things so much? Genuine question. I would have expected the crux of the work at this stage to be undertaken by solicitors etc..

Could be various reasons. Such as confirmation that money will be released or available by a specific date. Anything that needs specific detail. I would be guessing at anything that could cause a delay. But it does (hopefully) mean the delay in terms of the club/deal is not significant. Although I share all the concerns that the longer it goes on it affects preparation for next year. 

Until we know the real reason for the delay I think we should respect that fact that it is potentially something significant and personal to one of the ownership team and wish them well in coping with it. 

[Mannyroader]

A lot of people seem to be making things up and passing it all off as facts, so I have decided to do the same. Difference is, I'm owning up to it in advance rather than saying I heard it from a trusted source (one of the cleaners).

Dirk Kuyt: He has brought together a consortium comprising of former team mates (club and international). Robin Van Persie has recently retired, so he is in. Fernando Torres retired just last week; intriguingly; so he's in. Arjen Robben is on the point of retiring, so he is almost in. By the by those 3 wouldn't make a bad front line in League 1.

Harry Kewell will be the new manager ... or Rafa Benitez if he leaves Newcastle this week.

[Chris Custodiet]

12 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

By not paying any suppliers perhaps? If you don’t pay your suppliers then it will help you keep going 

Could have also mortgaged against future income? 

Fuck knows how the can was licked down the road but it was and the debt got bigger paying dozens of shit players good money 

Great analysis Birchy. I agree with you btw about Parky's poor signings. KA does too apparently.

But has it occurred to you that if you don't pay suppliers, suppliers stop supplying?

I don't expect you've read the audited accounts but by June 2017 there was a colossal £4.8m owed to unsecured creditors clamouring for their money, another, £1.4m due to HMRC not later than 10 August 2017, unpaid bonuses to players and yet more unspecified accrued charges.. So within the first few weeks of the next  financial year the first instalment of  the TV money (that would only halve the operating loss in any case) would have virtually all gone with the club running at a deficit of nearly half a million quid per month.

They could have possibly mortgaged future income if it wasn't already mortgaged but they didn't actually mortgage anything.

So my question remains unanswered.

Howard may have provided a strong clue but I doubt he/she intended it and most folk seemed to have  overlooked it.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Chris Custodiet

[birch-chorley]

Fuck knows, I guess the next set of accounts might tell us something, might not 

My guess would be that Ken has done very well out of it, by very well I mean he’s probably made a profit of £3m to £5m. Which is decent if he’s only worth circa £9m as reported 

Meanwhile the clubs in a much worse state than when he came here, League 1 on minus however many points, no players a matter of weeks away from the season kick off 

[Chris Custodiet]

11 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Fuck knows, I guess the next set of accounts might tell us something, might not 

My guess would be that Ken has done very well out of it, by very well I mean he’s probably made a profit of £3m to £5m. Which is decent if he’s only worth circa £9m as reported 

Meanwhile the clubs in a much worse state than when he came here, League 1 on minus however many points, no players a matter of weeks away from the season kick off 

Your guess eh? Based on what exactly?

if the takeover does go through and we do manage to get a team together for next season, my guess is that tne new owners will not be faced with wage costs of £12.6m and operating losses of £12.9m p.a. and they will not be paying Ben Amos the best part of a million quid a year to play for Charlton Athletic. If they were, would they be taking it on?

[Matthew1234]

The BEN have this morning updated their story on Michael James paying the wages of the staff.

Think this is quite a key addition: 

"Any loaned money will be then be paid back interest-free to the trust"

 

[Jol_BWFC]

12 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Your guess eh? Based on what exactly?

if the takeover does go through and we do manage to get a team together for next season, my guess is that tne new owners will not be faced with wage costs of £12.6m and operating losses of £12.9m p.a. and they will not be paying Ben Amos the best part of a million quid a year to play for Charlton Athletic. If they were, would they be taking it on?

Who’s legacy is that? Ken’s or the administrators’?

[Sluffy]

22 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

The BEN have this morning updated their story on Michael James paying the wages of the staff.

Think this is quite a key addition: 

"Any loaned money will be then be paid back interest-free to the trust"

 

That line was in the original article and refers in any event to the Bolton Wanderers COMMUNITY Trust (which I believe to be a charity) and not the ST which I think you may be confusing it with.

The update was that James funded the previous months wages.

 

[Matthew1234]

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

That line was in the original article and refers in any event to the Bolton Wanderers COMMUNITY Trust (which I believe to be a charity) and not the ST which I think you may be confusing it with.

The update was that James funded the previous months wages.

 

No I fully get that - I was more reading it from the perspective of doesn't this infer that Michael James loan was interest free? I know he gave the money to the community trust, who in turn gave it to the club, but given that it's being stated as interest free I thought it would be important to draw attention to.

Perhaps I completely neglected that in the original article, but I do not remember it being there. I am sure it is an addition made by Marc, since Kevin Davies' comments around the potential vested interests of Michael James and him making a profit off of these loans.

 

For what its worth - I was not trying to weigh in on the debate of the merits of the supporters trust. I do not know anywhere near enough around the personnel in the trust. The post was more made around the fact that the BEN article states the loan was interest free from the community trust. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Matthew1234

[Chris Custodiet]

23 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

The BEN have this morning updated their story on Michael James paying the wages of the staff.

Think this is quite a key addition: 

"Any loaned money will be then be paid back interest-free to the trust"

 

I seem to remember reading that the first time round. The report said that Michael James had donated the money to the Community Trust (a  registered charity) and the trust had, in turn, made emergency interest-free loans to help unpaid staff of the club and hotel.

Do not confuse the Community Trust with the ST. Its altogether a much more professional  outfit including, amongst several local worthies, Bill Dawson on its board. In its early existence, Mr Dawson helped the ST adding credibility to the ST and providing it with a level of financiak expertise that seems to have been sadly lacking since he left.

[Matthew1234]

1 minute ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I seem to remember reading that the first time round. The report said that Michael James had donated the money to the Community Trust (a  registered charity) and the trust had, in turn, made emergency interest-free loans to help unpaid staff of the club and hotel.

Do not confuse the Community Trust with the ST. Its altogether a much more professional  outfit including, amongst several local worthies, Bill Dawson on its board. In its early existence, Mr Dawson helped the ST adding credibility to the ST and providing it with a level of financiak expertise that seems to have been sadly lacking since he left.

Forgive me then - I must have missed it first time of reading the article. In that case, I am not sure what is so new about it!

I do know the difference between the Community Trust and ST, don't worry. I just do not know enough about the ST's personnel to make a reasoned judgement on its current structure. In the meantime I will just go back to refreshing the clubs website praying for takeover updates...

[Sluffy]

4 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

No I fully get that - I was more reading it from the perspective of doesn't this infer that Michael James loan was interest free? I know he gave the money to the community trust, who in turn gave it to the club, but given that it's being stated as interest free I thought it would be important to draw attention to.

Perhaps I completely neglected that in the original article, but I do not remember it being there. I am sure it is an addition made by Marc, since Kevin Davies' comments around the potential vested interests of Michael James and him making a profit off of these loans.

 

For what its worth - I was not trying to weigh in on the debate of the merits of the supporters trust. I do not know anywhere near enough around the personnel in the trust. The post was more made around the fact that the BEN article states the loan was interest free from the community trust. 

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.

[birch-chorley]

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Your guess eh? Based on what exactly?

if the takeover does go through and we do manage to get a team together for next season, my guess is that tne new owners will not be faced with wage costs of £12.6m and operating losses of £12.9m p.a. and they will not be paying Ben Amos the best part of a million quid a year to play for Charlton Athletic. If they were, would they be taking it on?

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 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by birch-chorley