Last I heard, it was court tomorrow

 

ST and Lies reported 3, including Heathcotes mob

 

KA said that was old news, leaving 2

 

 

Now, I can see HMRC is definitely a club issue,but the other is Sport Shield

 

If we assume KA can deal with HMRC debt - I'd have been happier if he had sorted that one already, tbf- that 'just' leaves SS and blumarble

 

If the court agrees to wind up SS, do we know what that means and also the impact on BWFC

Edited May 21, 20179 yr by Casino

Two tweets and he Has blocked me ????

They are extremely precious considering how quick they are to chuck criticism around

Is anyone NOT blocked by Daniel Izza?

Bower and Firth?

Speaking of those two tossers have they managed to utter owt positive 're the embargo being relaxed?

Bower was last seen hiding behind a close account. Edgy.

He's not the only one

Is anyone NOT blocked by Daniel Izza?

 

Me. Because I deleted Twitter about 2 years ago because it's full of absolute moon men

Me. Because I deleted Twitter about 2 years ago because it's full of absolute moon men

So is this place

So is this place

 

Oh I know that, the difference being I know some of these moon men.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wanderers/15543280.Supporters__39__trust_will_not_back_down_over_Macron_order_to___39_safeguard_the_club___s_future__39_/

It's not about the sale of assets, it's about the ability to raise finance off the back of them something that all successful businesses do if done properly, the ACV from what I understand will restrict our ability to do that.

 

Did they put this decision to obtain the ACV to a vote? How many fans did they get in agreeance? I don't understand why they think they (being from what I can see a small number of people with a high degree of self importance) have the right to mess with the running of a multi million pound business. They're an irrelevance that is quickly making themselves look like some sort of opposition party.

Edited September 19, 20178 yr by Eddie

It's not about the sale of assets, it's about the ability to raise finance off the back of them something that all successful businesses do if done properly, the ACV from what I understand will restrict our ability to do that.

 

Did they put this decision to obtain the ACV to a vote? How many fans did they get in agreeance? I don't understand why they think they (being from what I can see a small number of people with a high degree of self importance) have the right to mess with the running of a multi million pound business. They're an irrelevance that is quickly making themselves look like some sort of opposition party.

I agree with the ACV being in place I don't however agree with the Trust not putting this to a vote of the members, they might say that they've got the mandate via a survey but I felt that it was important that the Trust was seen to put this to the members.

The issue re difficulties raising cash is something that has reared its head significantly, post acv being put in place.

At least for me it has.

Sounds like the trust and ken would have been better getting together and sorting out the best way forward, and voting on that.

Don't think that was ever going to happen though. Shame.

The ST are an irritant as far as i'm concerned - in principle a decent idea and run correctly they are useful. Unfortunately, our ST are neither useful nor helpful

Question - why is Ian Bridge talking on behalf of the ST when he is no longer an elected Board member?

 

Doesn't this just underlines the fact that the ST is simply led by a very small group of likeminded people who don't consult their membership (or have ever been voted in) and take the decisions they want?

 

(And who all happen to be anti-Anderson!) 

The issue re difficulties raising cash is something that has reared its head significantly, post acv being put in place.

At least for me it has.

Sounds like the trust and ken would have been better getting together and sorting out the best way forward, and voting on that.

Don't think that was ever going to happen though. Shame.

I know the Trust feel that the ACV does not stop KA from raising money on the stadium I don't know if they've asked him why he needs the ACV removing. It has to be a major concern as to why he feels it is necessary to remove it as there's a lot of potential things he can do with an ACV removed that would greatly worry me. Lastly it's not in the Trusts power to remove the ACV anyway.

Edited September 19, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

Something as contentious as this needs to go a vote before being done in the name of BWFC supporters.

 

If the majority, like Mounts feel it's correct then fine, but to say it represents the fans views without a specific vote appears to be the Trust Board running their own little power trip

That article says hotel is also included pretty sure that is different from previous comments.

I know the Trust feel that the ACV does not stop KA from raising money on the stadium I don't know if they've asked him why he needs the ACV removing. It has to be a major concern as to why he feels it is necessary to remove it as there's a lot of potential things he can do with an ACV removed that would greatly worry me. Lastly it's not in the Trusts power to remove the ACV anyway.

ACV doesn't explicitly block borrowing on the land or properties. It does make it in reality far more difficult and de-values the assets. Also what is to say Ken doesn't plan to sell off some land around the stadium, this would make that very hard.

 

The Trust should have properly consulted Ken on this before taking action. The problem is despite what they say they only did it to make Ken's life as hard as possible. Which is why they did it without a vote, behind closed doors without any consultation.

two points from the iles article

 

 

While the ACV is in place, the stadium itself, the Whites Hotel, offices and car parking land around the ground cannot be sold without public notification.

 

this i believe is true

 

the an Izza quote

 

 

“It means that should the supporters have the opportunity to buy an asset in a commercial scenario, they have the first option.

 

i believe this is untrue

 

 

 

i think its a very important point

 

could somebody ask iles to do some digging and find out?

Dont see the point really of an AVC

 

 

“It means that should the supporters have the opportunity to buy an asset in a commercial scenario, they have the first option.

 

 

So if Ken decides to sell the hotel for say 10 mill - he has to give Izza the nod? - has the ST got a spare 10mill they can use??

see my point above

 

my understanding is that the trust could have a billion pounds and ken could still take a ten bob offer from somebody else

Dont see the point really of an AVC

 

 

 

It's to stop owner's asset stripping, taking  the money and moving on...

It's to stop owner's asset stripping, taking  the money and moving on...

 

How does it stop them doing that though?

 

Doesn't it just mean it will take longer and be made more public?