The Supporters Trust

[Kane57]

No idea. They'll probably trot out the line about them doing this in their spare time so not always available to update the website.

 

Doubt they'll mention that they binned off the lad who was doing it all for free in his own spare time....

[Mounts Kipper]

I think it means the ST and KA haters will think they've got one over the club and there's nowt they can do to help even if they wanted to

 

 

 

That's how I read it anyway

These type of comments are not helpful, it implies that the trust and its members are KA haters nothing could be further from the truth, do you really think other than 1 or 2 nut jobs any true Wanderers fan wants KA to fail?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Mounts Kipper

[Mounts Kipper]

As I understand it an ACV does have an impact on borrowing against assets...i.e. Mortgaging

 

Which is presumably what Ken is wanting to do.

It says in the statement that it does not preclude the club from raising finance on the stadium. If that's correct Ken can crack on and raise money by remortgaging the stadium without removing the ACV. Edited July 6, 2017 by Mounts Kipper

[Casino]

aye, but presumably the value of the stadium is reduced if theres a chance the council can do a compulsary purchase

 

theyve not helped here

 

tossers

[Guest]

It says in the statement that it does not preclude the club from raising finance on the stadium. If that's correct Ken can crack on and raise money by remortgaging the stadium without removing the ACV.

It doesn't prohibit it but has a significant impact upon it. Affects the value of the asset and presumably puts many lenders off.

 

As above it may practically make borrowing against those assets impossible. Another example of the trust deliberately working against the club.

 

Also do you seriously think Izza doesn't hate Ken Anderson? Seriously?

Edited July 6, 2017 by bwfcfan5

[Mounts Kipper]

aye, but presumably the value of the stadium is reduced if theres a chance the council can do a compulsary purchase

 

theyve not helped here

 

tossers

Why would it be reduce the value of the stadium? And if it did end up having to go to a compulsory purchase wouldnt that mean the owner has messed up. The ACV protects the stadium from being sold and would only be triggered in the event of a dubious deal being done that was against the interest of BWFC.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Mounts Kipper

[Ani]

Why would it be reduce the value of the stadium? And if it did end up having to go to a compulsory purchase wouldnt that mean the owner has messed up. The ACV protects the stadium from being sold and would only be triggered in the event of a dubious deal being done that was against the interest of BWFC.

 

Any property with a restriction on the use of the property will have a reduced value.

 

If you were buying a house and there was a third party interest registered against the property it should make you think twice and certainly would reduce the value of the house.  

[Mounts Kipper]

Any property with a restriction on the use of the property will have a reduced value.

 

If you were buying a house and there was a third party interest registered against the property it should make you think twice and certainly would reduce the value of the house.

Not sure the analogy you use is appropriate however I'm not in favour of removing the ACV even if it means KA can't raise further funds on the back of the stadium which as I understand he still can raise funds and no one knows if or how much the ACV reduces the amount of money he can raise.

 

I'll also point out that I still believe the trust has a place given the last owner and the lack of scrutiny he faced and the to debt well he ran up unchallenged that has now led to us being in the current financial mess. A good owner should not fear the trust but embrace the trust as they are only custodians of the club and fans.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Mounts Kipper

[Guest]

Not sure the analogy you use is appropriate however I'm not in favour of removing the ACV even if it means KA can't raise further funds on the back of the stadium which as I understand he still can raise funds and no one knows if or how much the ACV reduces the amount of money he can raise.

 

I'll also point out that I still believe the trust has a place given the last owner and the lack of scrutiny he faced and the to debt well he ran up unchallenged that has now led to us being in the current financial mess. A good owner should not fear the trust but embrace the trust as they are only custodians of the club and fans.

Don't take what the trust says at face value. The ACV will seriously limit the ability to secure funds against the stadium and surrounding areas. Given Ken needs investment how do you think he will attract this if the value of those assets are severely limited?

 

If the trust were working with the club why didn't they consult with Ken first before pushing for the ACV?

 

Use some critical thinking. They don't want Ken running the club and used this as a way to practically block his efforts to secure investment. It isn't even up for debate this. It's as clear as day. Then the whole 'sorry we can't lift the ACV' thing. Do you seriously expect us to think they were that naive they didn't realise this when applying?

 

Cunts trick. Performed by cunts.

[Carlos]

Use some critical thinking. They don't want Ken running the club and used this as a way to practically block his efforts to secure investment. It isn't even up for debate this. It's as clear as day. Then the whole 'sorry we can't lift the ACV' thing. Do you seriously expect us to think they were that naive they didn't realise this when applying?

 

Yes TBH. Absolute fucking amateurs playing god with our club.

[whiteboy]

  BWFC is a privately owned multi-million pound business in the leisure and entertainments section and in that sense is no different from say a large restaurant chain or a cinema company.

 

No one in their right minds who simply buys a pizza or goes to see the latest blockbuster would demand the right to monitor and seek board representation at say Pizza Express or Odeon Cinemas, so why do they feel they should demand a say over their local football club?

 

 

Good point. Next time I have a bad experience I'll fuck off to the bigger and better chain up the road. 

[Sluffy]

Good point. Next time I have a bad experience I'll fuck off to the bigger and better chain up the road. 

 

Well you could do that but what you most certainly would not do is to demand to see their financial accounts, place an ACV on their premises and ask for a position in their boardroom - and that (as you fully well know) is the point I was making.

[stevieb]

Supporters trust best piece of advice I can give you - stop writing comms like you are lawyers.

 

Speak to the fans you think you represent the way you speak to your acquaintances at the match.

 

You sound like a right set of cunts just from your tone of voice, that's before you've actually done anything.

[mickbrown]

These type of comments are not helpful, it implies that the trust and its members are KA haters nothing could be further from the truth, do you really think other than 1 or 2 nut jobs any true Wanderers fan wants KA to fail?

I've always viewed it as that. No bugger was more pissed off than the ST when KA effectively saved the club. It robbed them of their real life Championship Manager moment.

 

These fellas want to run the club. Simple as.

[barryk32]

I've not really paid much attention to the ST.  I have no idea of who the board members are etc, however I noticed a while back that not once have I said to myself, "well done, I'm glad we have a ST".  I have however said to myself on loads of occasions  "What absolute fucking cretins".

 

So, without looking too deeply I'm of the inclination that they're cretins.

[Carlos]

[Guest]

What value does a football stadium have?

 

Repossess it and use it as a ........football stadium, perhaps?

 

Knock it down and build houses on it? Not much, especially as the land is owned by the council ( I think, still)

[tomski]

What value does a football stadium have?

 

Repossess it and use it as a ........football stadium, perhaps?

 

Knock it down and build houses on it? Not much, especially as the land is owned by the council ( I think, still)

I was under the impression it was prime retail land and one of our previous bidders had that exact plan for hotels and more retail. This was before the ACV mind

[Guest]

I was under the impression it was prime retail land and one of our previous bidders had that exact plan for hotels and more retail. This was before the ACV mind

Sure

 

But I'm not sure the club own the land.

[Mounts Kipper]

Let us hope that if the ACV gets lifted then it does not come back to haunt us, so many on here trusting K.A. unconditionally obviously some folk have no experience of how serious business men operate in the real world. I seriously hope and pray that we are not lambs being led to the slaughter, some on here are willing to go blindly while others would prefer a comfort blanket rather than just hoping K.A. always puts the club interests before his own business interests. Let us see where we are in 12 months shall we folks.  

Edited July 7, 2017 by Mounts Kipper

[Traf]

I don't trust Ken (or anyone, for that matter) unconditionally, but the Trust have no trust or faith in him at all.

If Ken said our shirts were white, the ST would have to put some negative spin on the statement.

[Sluffy]

Let us hope that if the ACV gets lifted then it does not come back to haunt us, so many on here trusting K.A. unconditionally obviously some folk have no experience of how serious business men operate in the real world. I seriously hope and pray that we are not lambs being led to the slaughter, some on here are willing to go blindly while others would prefer a comfort blanket rather than just hoping K.A. always puts the club interests before his own business interests. Let us see where we are in 12 months shall we folks.  

 

Personally I can't see how the Council can now lift it unless it was applied incorrectly in the first place.

 

As for trusting KA and lambs to the slaughter - I would suggest Dean Holdsworth has done incalculably more damage than that already with his bizarre BM loan (including his million pound setting up fee!).

 

But he says he loves the club, so that must be ok then.

 

I'm not sure why KA would want the ACV lifting now, presumably it must make the club more attractive to sell on, or maybe perhaps he has an option to buy back the car park etc, within a given time frame before it goes on general sale to others, I guess.

 

On the face of it the obvious reasons to obtain some immediate finances to maybe pay-off the BM loan and/or cash flow to pay the wages, are far too imminent concerns and are required far more quickly than any successful appeal procedure could bring about.

 

I had highlighted right from the start that placing restrictions on the owners prime assets would greatly impact on his means of raising revenue if needed reasonably quickly and seemed a completely pointless course of action unless those (the ST) who sought it could raise the millions of pounds to buy the ground if ever needed - which of course they can't.

 

I always thought the action was more a punitive one taken by the ST because they clearly did not like (or trust) KA as can be evidenced in the current Chairman's (Daniel Izza's) previous public tweets, more than actually acting to 'protect' the ground.  How can you protect something you can't afford to buy when a sale is mooted?  The country's biggest demolition company could buy the ground and knock it down and the ST would still be utterly powerless to stop them if they a) couldn't raise the funds to buy it and  b )the owner didn't want to sell it to them - so what have they actually achieved?

 

Anyway what is done is done.

 

I would think Anderson's finances are stretched ever more tightly now and that would obviously have a direct impact on the financing of the club and substantially impact upon the clubs future.

 

In this regard I firmly believe the ST's actions have harmed the club and not actually helped it in any way.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Sluffy

[Mounts Kipper]

Personally I can't see how the Council can now lift it unless it was applied incorrectly in the first place.

 

As for trusting KA and lambs to the slaughter - I would suggest Dean Holdsworth has done incalculably more damage than that already with his bizarre BM loan (including his million pound setting up fee!).

 

But he says he loves the club, so that must be ok then.

 

I'm not sure why KA would want the ACV lifting now, presumably it must make the club more attractive to sell on, or maybe perhaps he has an option to buy back the car park etc, within a given time frame before it goes on general sale to others, I guess.

 

On the face of it the obvious reasons to obtain some immediate finances to maybe pay-off the BM loan and/or cash flow to pay the wages, are far too imminent concerns and are required far more quickly than any successful appeal procedure could bring about.

 

I had highlighted right from the start that placing restrictions on the owners prime assets would greatly impact on his means of raising revenue if needed reasonably quickly and seemed a completely pointless course of action unless those (the ST) who sought it could raise the millions of pounds to buy the ground if ever needed - which of course they can't.

 

I always thought the action was more a punitive one taken by the ST because they clearly did not like (or trust) KA as can be evidenced in the current Chairman's (Daniel Izza's) previous public tweets, more than actually acting to 'protect' the ground.  How can you protect something you can't afford to buy when a sale is mooted?  The country's biggest demolition company could buy the ground and knock it down and the ST would still be utterly powerless to stop them if they a) couldn't raise the funds to buy it and  b )the owner didn't want to sell it to them - so what have they actually achieved?

 

Anyway what is done is done.

 

I would think Anderson's finances are stretched ever more tightly now and that would obviously have a direct impact on the financing of the club and substantially impact upon the clubs future.

 

In this regard I firmly believe the ST's actions have harmed the club and not actually helped it in any way.

 

Where we differ is you see only wrong with the trust and only right with the owner, whereas I see right and wrongs from both sides and have no axe to grind with KA or the trust, it is quite clear to me you have an axe to grind with the trust above all else which is bordering on a mental issue for you.

Should the ACV be removed and it goes tits up resulting in the club losing the stadium I wonder what your view would be at that point, probably wont matter to you as you do not support the club by paying through the turnstile every week like proper fans do.       

[Traf]

Superfan points, now?

Is this where we're at?

[waffer cup 07]

I find it unbelievable that the trust applied for the ACV without consulting with the owner of the club. If they did it goes to show what an unprofessional shambles they are.