Sluffy

Maybe because of posts from you to him like this perhaps? Just a thought.

As I've said IA is not a shirt designer or manufacturing company and have sourced unbranded shirts from a supplier to be customised for the club. The manufacturer may well be NB but that certainly doesn't make IA an and offshoot of them as Iles stated. Iles has certainly been told since by somebody important enough to tweet a retraction to what he's said and delete it from his article - how often does that happen? So clearly someone high up was unhappy with his misrepresentation! I've no doubt that anybody has intentionally meant to mislead but it seem obvious from the start that a world renowned international sportswear manufacturing colossus with a £5 billion turnover has not set up a regular ten a penny screen printing company on a trading estate in Leeds as an offshoot. No disrespect to IA intended, just trying to say that they aren't that unique from any other screen printing companies found on any other trading estates throughout the country. I took for granted that Iles had got it wrong in his blog but when Traf said the same later on I wondered if maybe there was something in it after all and I spent all of five minutes looking who owned and funded IA and found no obvious links to NB. Seems I was right. Don't worry I'll stop posting after this, I'm clearly not welcome on here by many. Good day to all and Honi soit qui mal y pense' (evil to him who evil thinks) to those who seem to dislike me so much simply because of words I've written on an internet forum, non of which were written in abuse or anger and all simply seeking to shine light on the truth of things. Cue further abuse!

Iles wrote 'offshoot' in his article that he's since deleted and which he now 'apologises' for. He also posted this in his match day blog - 7:54pm Infinity Apparel - who are an offshoot of New Balance. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17952618.bolton-wanderers-0-blackpool-0-matchday-live-blog/ Infinity Apparel and New Balance are not connected to each other, so not an 'offshoot of' and not 'part of'.

What was it you were all saying?

I'm not having a pop but are you sure about that or simply repeating what Iles said in his blog? Doesn't seem to be any tie up between the two companies that I can find? Infinity Apparel seem to be an offshoot of Infinity Incorporated, and that company is 75% or more owned by a Mr Darren Cohen. who again doesn't seem to have any link to New Balance either? The only secured creditor for Infinity Incorporated is the bank. There is a tenuous link between the two via John Moores University where New Balance works in partnership with them and Infinity Apparel supply the sportswear to the University but that's nothing like the same as saying IA is an offshoot on NB. I think Infinity is simply a stand alone company in it's own right. IA doesn't appear to be a clothing designer or manufacturer. It would seem to me their method of operation is to source the clothing from abroad, bring it to Leeds and 'customise' it by printing or adding transfers to it, embroidering it if the customer so requires, and relabelling it in accordance to UK requirements (the washing instruction tag). I guess this enables them to be competitive on price, which in turn allows the purchaser to retail the goods at a high margin of profit or a discounted sale price to the consumer - and that's why they are being sold £10 cheaper than normal shirt prices. The disadvantage I guess is being limited on choice as to what shirts IA can source rather than provide a design and manufacture facility themselves. Everybody seems to win, IA provides finished goods in just six weeks, the club has a shirt, shirt sponsor is already onboard (PBP owns Home Bargains) and the fans are able to buy a new club shirt £10 less than they normally would.

At a guess I would suggest there isn't any sponsorship money as such but rather a reduction to the settlement debt owed to PBP. Possibly PBP even had a big say in the shirt final design too.

I agree you keep such thoughts to yourself. I disagree that anyone should be assaulted if they didn't. Would a woman get a slap if they said the same? Would say a fifteen year old get one too if they got goby? So why would anyone want to slap say an eighty year old bloke then? I was brought up that "words will never hurt me" although sticks and stones might. We are getting on for being almost a quarter of the way through the twenty-first century for Christ sake, I thought we'd left this Neanderthal behaviour way back in the nineteen seventies and eighties? I get called worse than being a dickhead every single day on the forums and I just laugh it off. I don't care if people think I'm nuttier that a fruitcake, I don't give a toss what anyone says about me on a forum - why should I? I certainly don't go around calling people out because they call me a cunt or I'm mentally ill or something, so why would anyone want to react with violence (even in this mythical pub we are in) to being called something as tame and as wussy as "you're a bit thick and a bit of a Richard Head" (fuck me he never even said dickhead did he!). For Christ sake sit down, turn a deaf ear to him and let's have a pint all round on me, eh? And Custard please stop saying such things in future, it's upsetting the locals, come and have a drink with me too and let's try to make friends with all. Does that seem reasonable with everyone?

Maybe you are absolutely right, nobody knows seems to know but the ST did put a tweet out (which I copied and posted on page three of this thread) that STATES that the Fanzine is being OPERATED as a PARTNERSHIP between the ST and Football Ventures I read that as them having something of an official / contractual arrangement (whether written or implied) - and hence my question as to whether the ST was able to still do that considering it's apparent breaches to its own constitution. I guess we'll find out soon enough

I wish it well and hopes it meets in full the various expectations of those who would wish to frequent it. I'm not sure why this thread turned into something of a shit-storm? It started off about the ST's questionnaire about what they were gathering information on about running the Fanzone and I merely posed the question of whether or not, due to them breaching their own written constitution, they could legally do so? Seemed a reasonable - and obvious - question to me. I've not been negative, I wasn't being condescending, I wasn't trying to be clever, put the ST down or anything else - merely asking a simple question in advance of the event because if there is an issue then the ST and the club have time to work around it and still put on the Fanzone and if there wasn't then all well and good and my concern wasn't warranted. Isn't that better than the Fanzone being called off at the last minute because they find they can no longer enter into contracts because they breached their rights to be able to do so, or even worse if your dad or child hurts themselves whilst there and it is later found out no one is financially insured to put things right again for them? This isn't a group of friends and neighbours putting on a barbeque in your back garden type thing, this is a registered company (albeit it non a profit organisation) putting on a public, commercial, event. Like it or not they have to do so in requirement of the law. As for the threats of abuse to Chris, a bloke certainly in his seventies, if not his eighties, is utterly disgraceful whatever provocation he may have made and to find out the worst he's said is that he finds a few on here either thick or a bit of a dickhead is a shocking overreaction from some. Maybe some of the stuff was said towards him in jest but some jokes just aren't funny - and can lead to those who said it being referred to the police. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jun/13/police-investigate-jo-brands-battery-acid-remark I'm no spoilsport or anything but several grown men issuing threats of violence to a pensioner, just because he called them thick or a dickhead is a massive and disgraceful overreaction in my eyes. Maybe he should have kept his thoughts to himself but macho threats of violence towards him for saying so is unbelievable and totally unwarranted. Are we not better than this by now?

I'd say it was in respect of a Supporters Trust survey which happens to be about the Fanzone and was specifically asking who from this site would represent the forum in respect of a single question on the ST's questionnaire (of which the ST hadn't contacted this or other sites as far as I'm aware, even to ask if anyone from those respect forums the ST questionnaire named would even like to provide a representative to take part in the first place!). The thread indeed morphed into a more general discussion about the Fanzone but the thread was indeed started in respect of something the ST was asking.

Serious answer: Obviously I won't name names but I've been on BWFC forums for years and have been involved in modding and/or creation of four of them during that time. Over those years and in my capacity as a mod I've had to cross swords with numerous people for many reasons in order to keep the peace or stop people going too far over the line, for the best interests of everybody else on the sites. The vast majority of people accept it (some reluctantly) but one or two couldn't and have gone on to have a pop at me whenever they can ever since, some of these internet vendettas they carry have been going on for well over ten years now believe it or not. In the last few years society has raised the awareness of mental health and threads and discussions have appeared on social media, Twitter, Facebook, etc, as well as forums like this. Individuals have voluntarily talked about the issues they have, some of them resulting from unhappy childhoods. It wasn't that surprising to me to see a number of those few individuals who have trolled me (and other people) both now and in the past openly discussing their issues. Although I've had and continue to enjoy a happy life I am well aware of the issues of mental health with one of my cousins suffering from it for years and the impact that it's had on their life and their family's. I'm not one to judge and I wish people well but clearly some individuals behaviour on forums as well as real life is effected by their mental state. It would be good if people could just simply live and let live, rather than tearing things apart. The only thing we have in common on here is our shared love of BWFC. Isn't that enough?

I'm aware of who Riggins44 was, an extremely odd bloke I found who seems to desperately seek attention through confrontation and abuse on social media and who has been banned countless times on Twitter to my knowledge. He was for a time an acolyte of Bower, Smurf, etc, under his many user names one of which Stan Bartolome had been mentioned a time or two on here iirc. He's one of those who adds #FBPE to his twitter name and rages about Brexit all the time - or at least he used to - probably still does Each to their own and all that but not someone I'd particularly like to have a pint with. He probably thinks the same about me too!

Not at all! There's hundreds of threads on here, only one or two of them are about finances and that's where we keep financial discussions to, that's not unreasonable is it? You do realise that what's been talked about above has nothing at all to do with finance don't you? It's been about the ST's involvement with the Fanzone , which I believe is on topic. In fact quite a bit of what I've posted has been in direct response to Casino's questions about the ST. If he's happy with the thread then I don't really see what the problem you seem to have about it is?

Scientia potential est.

I think you most certain were - Hurst defends himself against links to Phil Gartside. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/14231621.new-supporters-trust-chairman-this-is-absolutely-not-for-personal-gain/ Mr Hurst has since sadly passed away - https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/17373697.tributes-paid-to-business-visionary-richard-hurst-who-has-died-aged-73/ I've no idea if Allanson is somewhere in the background at the ST or not. I doubt it though. It does seem that his solicitor offices have accordingly now been finally closed down by his professional body - Decision - Closure Reasons/basis An Adjudicator is satisfied that Mr Allanson has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011, the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011 being rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act). Intervening agents John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford, BD1 5LL has been appointed as the intervening agent. https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/132976/ And this from Gordons - What has happened to Allansons LLP? Allansons LLP of 1st Floor, Queens Buildings, Central Street, Bolton, Lancashire, BL1 2AB, 658 Ormskirk Road, Pemberton, Wigan, WN5 8AQ and 44 Clarendon Road, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD17 1DR (‘Allansons’), has been closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (‘SRA’). This is called an intervention. The intervention took place on 24 May 2019. Gordons LLP of 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford, BD1 5LL have been appointed to help the SRA with the closure. They are called the SRA’s Intervention Agent. What does this mean? If you were a client, Allansons can no longer act for you. You will need to find another lawyer to act. Gordons are not acting for you. https://www.gordonsllp.com/allansons-llp-sra-intervention/ Did Iles ever do his article on Mr Allanson, the one time ST golden boy spokesman who set up the company to take ownership of the club on behalf of the ST? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11612819 There is also quite a strange follow up to Allanson's if anybody is interested - make of it what you will??? https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/scam-alerts/2019/sep/allansons-llp-litigation-funder/

I used to have an extremely good memory but old age is catching up with it these days! Time and tide and all that!

Fair enough, it's just that you seem to pick up on the points I make more than most (apart from my usual camp followers of course). I guess we just are in someway opposites, which surprises me somewhat with us both sharing a public service ethos - or at least been immersed in it career wise for many years apiece. As for your comments to Chris I think you've got the wrong end of the stick somehow? The independent Auditor for the July 18 accounts was former ST Board Member Mike Egan who seemed to have left the Board at the November 2017 AGM but as continually been shown as a serving Board Member on the ST's official website for the last TWO YEARS! I think Chris rightly questions how he could be seen to be 'independent' to audit their accounts up to July 2018 having been a Board Member for part of the financial year in question (August to November 2017)? I don't doubt Mr Egan's honesty and integrity in the least however and that I believe was the point Chris was emphasising to you in his replies.

I believe you are thinking of Richard Hurst?

It's been quite apparent to me from very early on that the wrong people got involved, took charge and are more or less all still there (or thereabouts). Clearly there was overwhelming support and goodwill from countless Wanderers supporters from the off, many offering their professional expertise, skills and knowledge to make the ST a success but in reality what happened was the founders kept tight control of it and seemingly only brining on board with them people they knew or those with the same narrow mindset as themselves, to the exclusion of everyone else. Their agenda and actions since has turned this tidal wave of support for them to virtually universal indifference, well within their four years of existence. That's not me simply being anti the ST but just saying it as it is. It would appear to me that they haven't set much importance on the administration and running of their public society in line with their own written constitution and that's why I now question if they are even constituted as a legal entity anymore? Anyway I've made my point and will leave it at that. It will however be interesting to see who covers the costs for running the event, as apparently it ran at a loss previously and the match day attendances have reduced by a few thousand since then.

Well they are claiming it to be as a partnership and talking about "availabilities of facilities". However I've made my point so I'll leave it be as you wish.

It's difficult to know who exactly is on the ST Board at all Chris. According to their statement of accounts for July 2018, they had just FIVE Board Members being Rigby, Tetlow, Smith, Brown and Nightingale (page 17 - Independent Examiners Report dated 21/12/18) which was signed off by Mike Egan, who is indeed shown on the ST's own official web site as being their Treasurer! https://www.bwfcst.co.uk/about-us/board-members/ Yet the ST's accounts of which he independently verifies list SIX Board Members (see both pages 4 and 14 also dated 21/12/18) with Allanson being shown on them. https://mutuals.fca.org.uk/Search/Society/23715 If this isn't baffling enough their Chairman Terrance Rigby in his Introduction to the New Board in January 2018 stated that Ian Bridge was also now a Board Member (co-opted) too! And also that Mike Egan wasn't - although to this day he's clearly shown as being so, almost TWO YEARS later! https://www.bwfcst.co.uk/a-few-words-from-the-new-bwfcst-chairman-terence-rigby/ It would seem to me that they are either keeping one or more of their Directors somehow secret from the public eye or much more likely constituted with just five Board Members - Rigby, Tetlow, Smith, Brown and Nightingale, which if so is in breach of their own constitution that "The Society shall have a Board of Directors comprising not less than six and not more than twelve persons (Constitution of the Board - Rule 56)" and simply 'padded' up their number for public consumption by keeping Egan as being shown even though he's not been officially involved as such for a couple of years? Their inability to even state publicly such basic information as to who their own Board Members are on their own official website clearly makes a complete mockery of their stated objective of 'operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the club to do the same" (Objectives - Rule 4.4). Should be fun then watching them attempt to organise a piss-up at the brewery Fanzone

I'm fully aware of why most of my usual trolls follow me about but I have no idea why your good self, a respected former public servant, who I've never crossed swords with on other forums over the years, seems to have continual issues with me? Anyway fwiw my point was that I'm not sure of the legality of the ST entering into ANY contracts through to them seemingly now acting outside of their own constitutional requirements and having been doing so for several months now. Clearly I have no idea as to what part the ST will be involved with the Fanzone event but if they are 'sub-letting' the venue to put on a public event, then clearly they need to have some form of public liability insurance, as it is they that are responsible for the event and not the owner of the venue. For instance it certainly would not have been the club (or the Administrator at the time) who provided insurance for the recent Rod Stewart concert, even though the club/Administrator was the venue owner. If the ST enters into any further contracts to put on the Fanzone between themselves and others such as suppliers, such as brewery's, entertainment, catering, security, etc, etc, and something went awry then who would the liability fall on - the club as owners of the venue? I think not. Whether you think my "latest essay" is bollocks and that I am "anti-Supporters Trust" does not detract in any way over asking whether they acting legally or not. I would have thought you especially as a former public service fire bobby of some seniority would have more concern about public events being run legally and safely than me being pro or anti the ST.

Are they even insured to do something like this? Unless I've missed it, their last AGM was held November 2017 (the previous and very first AGM being held in July 2016 - with the ST being launched in March 2016) As far as I can tell they are not in compliance with their own constitution being the snappily entitled 'Supporters Direct, Model Rules for a Supporters Community Mutual (2014 Version) which is lodged at the Mutuals Public Register, on a number of counts, particularly relating to non compliance of holding a yearly AGM and the election of Directors to their board. On the face of it, it would seem to me the ST has a question mark hanging over it because of the breach of it's own constitution in these regards so much so that I question whether it is now even a properly constituted legal entity and thus have the power to enter into contracts. If I was an ST board member I would be getting extremely concerned that I didn't find myself personally liable if anything went awry until these matters are addressed and rectified urgently and in advance of any public function they would wish to get involved in. Presumably FV will have Public Liability Insurance cover for any events they hold but if they have contracted out the operation of the Fanzone to the ST then presumably it would be them who would be liable if anything untoward happened and if I was the insurance provider I'd be looking to establish that the ST are a properly constituted body - I'd certainly be looking that they are operating in accordance with their constitution - which it doesn't seem to me that they currently are. So if you are at the Fanzone and slip on a carelessly discarded, overly buttered, hot dog bun and end up breaking your coccyx, then who going to sue for your compo?

Chris has accidentally transposed the figures, Hayes states 78p in his book, which if you read the Bolton News article the day before the launch sounds more than reasonable, but conflicts to some extent to with what Kobeer has said above. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/6181632.share-float-set-for-bumper-premium/

Ok. Thanks. Last game at Burnden was against Charlton...