Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Players Not Paid


Ani

Recommended Posts

The big issue is that KA wants the Trust to remove the ACV from the stadium what's everyone's view on that request?

It makes sense, from his point of view to not have it in place. I would have thought it affects the value of the club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said some weeks back on here that the ACV placed a 'block' on the biggest asset the owner has and thus would considerably limit his financial 'wriggle room' if needed - seems I've called it correctly.

 

http://www.wanderersways.com/forum/topic/87838-the-supporters-trust/?p=1707326

 

Unless the ST can guarantee the funds to buy the stadium (which I believe it could never do) then I couldn't see the point in having the ACV in the first place.

 

I seem to recall you wasn't complimentary to my views on this at the time.

 

(This post isn't intended as a pop at anybody - just wanted to make that clear).

I'm not in favour of removing the ACV it's tantamount to selling off the Crown Jewels in my eyes. Sadly don't know what the answer is though as it seems we have an owner who is struggling to finance the club out of his own pocket, that's not a criticism of Ken but a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in favour of removing the ACV it's tantamount to selling off the Crown Jewels in my eyes. Sadly don't know what the answer is though as it seems we have an owner who is struggling to finance the club out of his own pocket, that's not a criticism of Ken but a fact.

 

It may not be a fact though.

 

What is at issue is Anderson paying 100% of the running costs but only owning slightly less than 50% of the club.

 

He has no guarantee that Holdsworth won't gain from that due to his other half of the share holding of the club, nor that he would refund Anderson his share of the running costs when he sells his shares.

 

Holdsworth shares are more valuable if the club is a going concern than if it was placed into Administration but he seems to have constantly for several months now, refused to meet his half of the running costs.

 

It is fully understandable that Anderson, or anyone else for that matter, is aggrieved by this. 

 

 

As for the ACV - unless the ST could guarantee to raise the millions to buy the stadium, then what is the point?

 

Seems very much like an 'Aesop's' Dog in a Manger analogy to me -

 

http://fablesofaesop.com/the-dog-in-the-manger.html

 

Wouldn't it be better for everyone to allow Anderson to raise loans against his prime asset, than to let the club possibly to become insolvent because he can't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be a fact though.

 

What is at issue is Anderson paying 100% of the running costs but only owning slightly less than 50% of the club.

 

He has no guarantee that Holdsworth won't gain from that due to his other half of the share holding of the club, nor that he would refund Anderson his share of the running costs when he sells his shares.

 

Holdsworth shares are more valuable if the club is a going concern than if it was placed into Administration but he seems to have constantly for several months now, refused to meet his half of the running costs.

 

It is fully understandable that Anderson, or anyone else for that matter, is aggrieved by this.

 

 

As for the ACV - unless the ST could guarantee to raise the millions to buy the stadium, then what is the point?

 

Seems very much like an 'Aesop's' Dog in a Manger analogy to me -

 

http://fablesofaesop.com/the-dog-in-the-manger.html

 

Wouldn't it be better for everyone to allow Anderson to raise loans against his prime asset, than to let the club possibly to become insolvent because he can't?

Anderson as far as I understand it is only lending the club money then taking it back as soon as it becomes available, there is no easy answer here however I'm still not comfortable with the removal of the ACV however If fans were allowed to vote and made that call I'd go along with the majority decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Mounts

 

The ACV allows the trust 6 months to bid for the stadium

 

 

Let's ignore facts and assume for a minute that the ST could make an offer worthy of consideration

 

The ACV doesn't require KA to accept it, even if it's the best offer on the table

 

So, imo, it means fcuk all

 

 

Tell me why I am wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anderson as far as I understand it is only lending the club money then taking it back as soon as it becomes available, there is no easy answer here however I'm still not comfortable with the removal of the ACV however If fans were allowed to vote and made that call I'd go along with the majority decision.

Sweaty Ken has said a few times in the past that once the issues around Holdsworth and Blumarble are sorted he'd be prepared to stick more money in on a longer term basis.

 

He was also saying that he's covering shortfalls and then taking the money back out when the club can afford it because he doesnt want to risk losing his money if something goes south with the other owners of the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people need to get off KA's back, he's doing an incredible job of bringing the club back from the brink. If he wasn't acting in the best interests of the club we would have known by now. It's not like the players will be rushing to the food bank if they have to wait a couple of days for their bonuses. Yet another none story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mounts

 

The ACV allows the trust 6 months to bid for the stadium

 

 

Let's ignore facts and assume for a minute that the ST could make an offer worthy of consideration

 

The ACV doesn't require KA to accept it, even if it's the best offer on the table

 

So, imo, it means fcuk all

 

 

 

 

Tell me why I am wrong

From what little I know about ACV it means he can't sell the stadium without offering it to the supporters Trust first so in theory if the Trust could raise the finance then it's possible that he might accept the bid, without the ACV he could sell now to anyone or sell it to another of his companies and rent the stadium back to the club. None of the last 2 options appeal to me as it could mean we lose the stadium and worst case scenario we have to play elsewhere like Coventry had to. I'll read up on ACV later to get the full picture. Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people need to get off KA's back, he's doing an incredible job of bringing the club back from the brink. If he wasn't acting in the best interests of the club we would have known by now. It's not like the players will be rushing to the food bank if they have to wait a couple of days for their bonuses. Yet another none story.

As far as I can see no one on kens back. Just some folk are concerned.

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Dunno who crompton is, but it's mostly been over moxey

 

On the dick scale, I'd put L.A. at 3 out of10 and manning at 9

 

Tony Reardon has come in for some flack too for revealing the name of an agent checked in to the hotel in a few days

Edited by Casino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been pissed/hungover/at a funeral for the past 3 days.

 

What's gone on with Superagent / manning and that dick gazza compton??

 

A little fuller explanation on Nuts if you are interested -

 

http://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t16203-kane57-chris-manning-s-been-blocked#342540

 

(As for Compton the last tweet I saw of his was a poll question asking which team he should go and support until the Anderson's left the club).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Here's the thing, these pricks think they are famous because they have a Twitter account or a blog. Gazza is most likely an troll alias, if not they need help of the K2 variety. Manning will be getting off on having a thread about him. Who is he? Nobody. An absolute fucking nobody.

 

However, that Bower was one of the ST mob. HOWEVER he wasn't voted on, and as such is no more important than anyone else in the world. LA doesn't work for the club and we don't know why he was blocked. Let's face it, the ST lads are pricks so he may actually have deserved it.

 

We live in a world where the undemocratically elected acting chair of the Supporters' Trust is blocking members who haven't approved of the way they are running things. When the election time comes, I'm going to town on Mr Izza. But that can wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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