We're fucked.

Next!

 

Seriously how can you not do due diligence buying anything from anyone let alone Anderson?

 

If you do due diligence and you find significant debts or issues away from expectations, you walk away. It’s as simple as that. 

Eh, iss okeh mate, I gotta loadsa money innit, I’ll cover the debt- it don’t matter how much...

 

14m?

 

ciao

I know from Anderson’s perspective it’s about getting the best deal. Everyone in the football world knows there are big financial issues, so surely there is some responsibility on the seller to make it clear what is being sold. 

Just now, Tommy Banks said:

I know from Anderson’s perspective it’s about getting the best deal. Everyone in the football world knows there are big financial issues, so surely there is some responsibility on the seller to make it clear what is being sold. 

thats what due diligence is for

The consensus on Twitter (yeah right) is that the 14m is actually assurances of two lots of 7m being available for next 2 years to prove the club can be run properly.

Seems a reasonable ask to me.

In fairness to LB, he has a point wanting to know if the club will be saddled with a points punishment, even if he buys the club.

As he says, if so, take the admin route and get it cheaper.

Of course, it could just be a way out for him.

2 hours ago, Hoppy510 said:

I think the EFL have a lot to answer for, especially as regards the fit and proper owners and directors "test". Allegedly it focuses on their financial and criminality backgrounds and yet Ken Anderson was approved despite having a form for combining those two allegedly key ingredients in one fell swoop when he was banned from all directorships for syphoning off company money into personal accounts. 

Now they're considering Bassini despite what he's done in the past. Surely there has to be some sort of "moral and managerial competence" element to the test with potential owners having to provide a comprehensive business plan with deliverable milestones which the EFL check regularly for compliance and variation? And tied to a contract which potential owners have to sign in order to get an ownership licence, which can be revoked if they take the piss. There are definitely some positive aspects from the US franchise system that could be learned from and adapted to the EFL although that would be a huge task.

It's not that past experience hasn't flagged up these issues before - Becchetti at Orient and Rahic at Bradford for example - but it seems they've learned nothing.

Mistakes are acceptable, but not learning from them isn't.

 

I doubt there can be a moral judgement aspect, otherwise they will fall foul of the law. Ultimately, once any criminal or civil punishment has expired I don’t think they can do much with them. 

1 minute ago, Boothy said:

I doubt there can be a moral judgement aspect, otherwise they will fall foul of the law. Ultimately, once any criminal or civil punishment has expired I don’t think they can do much with them. 

Wife's place don't take people on with criminal records if the post involves going into schools.

Understandable too, does make you wonder why a thieving cunt can't be banned from doing the same thing as he once did.

7 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Wife's place don't take people on with criminal records if the post involves going into schools.

Understandable too, does make you wonder why a thieving cunt can't be banned from doing the same thing as he once did.

If he didn't get a jail sentence of 4 years or more, then Rehabilitation of Offenders Act clears his record after 5 or less.

EFL are concerned to avoid money laundering - hence show us the money. 

7 minutes ago, MalcolmW said:

If he didn't get a jail sentence of 4 years or more, then Rehabilitation of Offenders Act clears his record after 5 or less.

EFL are concerned to avoid money laundering - hence show us the money. 

See I don't get that. Fine, the ability to be rehabilitated is important, but you'd think they'd have to earn the right to go back into such a senior position first. 

Our ken is in a position to seriously bugger up the lives of a lot of people. Just seems odd that he's entitled to get that chance so soon after doing something similar previously.

Let's go back to basics for a bit

How much does it cost to run/how much does BWFC  take every year?

Wages/Stadium/Matchday 

versus

TV money/Matchday income/Commercials.

 

Let's just look at it as a business. 

I don't know, but I'd say it would struggle to break even.

It's just not an attractive business proposition.

If it was a crime to fraudulently take money from a business and put it in a private account; and it must be because Anderson has already been done for it, can BWFC not have his personal accounts frozen under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002?

If admin 

does ken get anything substantial 

5 minutes ago, MickyD said:

If it was a crime to fraudulently take money from a business and put it in a private account; and it must be because Anderson has already been done for it, can BWFC not have his personal accounts frozen under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002?

Only the court can do that after a prosecution.

He hasn't yet been charged with fraudulently taking money out of BWFC, has he?

Has he even done that?

13 minutes ago, Traf said:

Only the court can do that after a prosecution.

He hasn't yet been charged with fraudulently taking money out of BWFC, has he?

Has he even done that?

The funds would have to actually have been paid into a BWFC or company account firstly, to be then taken out of BWFC. But this is pure speculation and has yet to proved/disproved, so we need to be careful when discussing such things

 

24 minutes ago, MickyD said:

If it was a crime to fraudulently take money from a business and put it in a private account; and it must be because Anderson has already been done for it, can BWFC not have his personal accounts frozen under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002?

POCA is to recoup gains from criminality, people are jumping the gun a bit here

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Wife's place don't take people on with criminal records if the post involves going into schools.

Understandable too, does make you wonder why a thieving cunt can't be banned from doing the same thing as he once did.

That’s safeguarding to protect vulnerable people. Some might argue its over zealous to blanket ban anyone with a criminal record. 

If I was a bookie

i wouldn’t be offering any odds on Admin right now.

 

Brentford game to go ahead on 7th, providing we get SAG certificate tomorrow, and don't go into admin beforehand.

Nixon's suddenly changed his tune started to sound a bit liquidationy

6 minutes ago, lowcarbon said:

Brentford game to go ahead on 7th, providing we get SAG certificate tomorrow, and don't go into admin beforehand.

Maybe they know something about admin given they mention it.

4 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Without wishing to defend the EFL as that is far from the case, but the numerous embargos were surely an effort to protect us from ourselves?

The EFL do need defending

If they chose Anderson over numerous options, they'd need fcuking over

But, they didnt

It's ending in the shit, but that's exactly where it started

https://www.efl.com/news/2019/may/efl-statement-bolton-wanderers2