2 hours ago, Kane57 said:

So you're saying there's a chance 

 

6 hours ago, Kane57 said:

So you're saying there's a chance 

I would have thought if Anderson had done anything improper in his dealings over the last three years then there would have been a queue of people already reporting him to the legal authorities, wouldn't you?

If so many people know all about the underhanded and illegal practices he's supposed to have been doing, then why has no one been on to the police, or regulatory authorities before now? 

Do you think if the ST or Iles knew about such illegalities they wouldn't have taken action immediately before now, Christ it would have been the smoking gun/Holy Grail they've been desperately looking for to pot Anderson for all these years.

With your LoV site you have a both contacts within the club (perhaps hotel too) and certainly widely known throughout the BWFC supporters social media community and I would have thought that anyone with some juicy gossip about Anderson's alleged corrupt and illegal practices would have contacted you long before now - and if they had you would have reported such information to the proper authority, wouldn't have you?

We even know Due Diligence has been done on the books of the club by 'forensic accountants' from Football Ventures - and any irregularities they find they are compelled to report to the proper authorities - and these people know what they are looking for and know who to report it to if they do find something!

So it would seem on the face of it that no one has been able to find anything illegal that Anderson has supposed to have done - no matter how much or how desperately they would love to do.

If someone out there does however have proof or knowledge then they should report it to the police immediately, even if it isn't a police matter they will help you pass it on to those bodies that would deal with the issue such as the Insolvency Service or even the National Crime Agency.

If Anderson has acted illegally then he should be punished accordingly by the law - I've never have a problem with that.

All I've ever said for the last three years is where is the proof that Anderson has been doing something/anything illegal - and up to now no one has.

Sorry if simply asking for proof before joining the hatred seems to have made me into a pariah to you and others in someway or other?

5 hours ago, Morizio said:

So sayeth SKA lead cocksucker

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words (particularly from someone old enough to know better at your age, to be seeking attention to themselves by abusively trolling on social media) will never hurt me.

Have a nice day.

15 hours ago, snowball said:

Good. It would be better if he/she 'entertained you 'elsewhere. If being patronised and insulted by a devious bullshit merchant is your idea of entertainment  must be a better place for you and other Howard acolytes infesting WW

Having "infested" WW pretty much since it was set up in one guise or another I've read the bullshit you write from time to time without complaining but that doesn't make me an acolyte of yours - or anyone else for that matter.

It's a forum so I don't have to agree with anyone or believe anything that anyone says or even read their posts if I don't want to and seeing that every user has that level of control over the situation, the last thing anyone needs is some jumped up little fascist trying to play Big Brother and censor anything they don't like.

Read the rules you agreed to when you joined. You know what to do if you don't like them.

Sluffy gon' Sluffy

9 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I would have thought if Anderson had done anything improper in his dealings over the last three years then there would have been a queue of people already reporting him to the legal authorities, wouldn't you?

If so many people know all about the underhanded and illegal practices he's supposed to have been doing, then why has no one been on to the police, or regulatory authorities before now? 

Do you think if the ST or Iles knew about such illegalities they wouldn't have taken action immediately before now, Christ it would have been the smoking gun/Holy Grail they've been desperately looking for to pot Anderson for all these years.

With your LoV site you have a both contacts within the club (perhaps hotel too) and certainly widely known throughout the BWFC supporters social media community and I would have thought that anyone with some juicy gossip about Anderson's alleged corrupt and illegal practices would have contacted you long before now - and if they had you would have reported such information to the proper authority, wouldn't have you?

We even know Due Diligence has been done on the books of the club by 'forensic accountants' from Football Ventures - and any irregularities they find they are compelled to report to the proper authorities - and these people know what they are looking for and know who to report it to if they do find something!

So it would seem on the face of it that no one has been able to find anything illegal that Anderson has supposed to have done - no matter how much or how desperately they would love to do.

If someone out there does however have proof or knowledge then they should report it to the police immediately, even if it isn't a police matter they will help you pass it on to those bodies that would deal with the issue such as the Insolvency Service or even the National Crime Agency.

If Anderson has acted illegally then he should be punished accordingly by the law - I've never have a problem with that.

All I've ever said for the last three years is where is the proof that Anderson has been doing something/anything illegal - and up to now no one has.

Sorry if simply asking for proof before joining the hatred seems to have made me into a pariah to you and others in someway or other?

What is the timescale in matters like this?

For example in Ken's case when he was banned from being a company director from 2005 - 2013,  how long had he been committing offences before he was caught and subsequently banned for 8 years?

9 hours ago, Sluffy said:

 

All I've ever said for the last three years is where is the proof that Anderson has been doing something/anything illegal - and up to now no one has.

Sorry if simply asking for proof before joining the hatred seems to have made me into a pariah to you and others in someway or other?

That's a fair position to take Sluffy. Although it does mean that, as fans looking in from outside who are never likely to enjoy the access required to determine illegal activity, that we may simply never know. Especiallt when there are many examples of corporate malfeasance going undetected by highly paid professionals with seemingly full access to the books.

For me, even if one proceeds on the innocent until proven guilty standard that we would expect others to extend to ourselves, there's sufficient examples from KA of behaviour that falls far below a reasonable standard to justify the opprobrium that's come his way, even if it doesn't come with a smoking gun and a treasure map that leads to a bag of cash with 'swag' written on it.

8 hours ago, Hoppy510 said:

Having "infested" WW pretty much since it was set up in one guise or another I've read the bullshit you write from time to time without complaining but that doesn't make me an acolyte of yours - or anyone else for that matter.

It's a forum so I don't have to agree with anyone or believe anything that anyone says or even read their posts if I don't want to and seeing that every user has that level of control over the situation, the last thing anyone needs is some jumped up little fascist trying to play Big Brother and censor anything they don't like.

Read the rules you agreed to when you joined. You know what to do if you don't like them.

Yawn. Really dont care that much. Would just like to come on here occasionally for an update without having to wade through tons of boring shit posted by folk embarrassingly taken in by an imposter i.e. not a genuine fan but someone clearly with an agenda and who is laughing at gullible desperate folk hanging on their every word. But you crack on. Probably find sluffer the fluffer entertaining an' all

2 minutes ago, ProfessorWoland said:

That's a fair position to take Sluffy. Although it does mean that, as fans looking in from outside who are never likely to enjoy the access required to determine illegal activity, that we may simply never know. Especiallt when there are many examples of corporate malfeasance going undetected by highly paid professionals with seemingly full access to the books.

For me, even if one proceeds on the innocent until proven guilty standard that we would expect others to extend to ourselves, there's sufficient examples from KA of behaviour that falls far below a reasonable standard to justify the opprobrium that's come his way, even if it doesn't come with a smoking gun and a treasure map that leads to a bag of cash with 'swag' written on it.

With respect that is a completely wrong assumption that you are making about the general public such as ourselves (as oppose to practitioners in specialised fields) not having any access to proven wrong doing by Company Directors.

If it was found that Anderson had acted illegally, so much so he ended up in court, I'm sure that that would come to our attention in any event - Allanson formerly of the ST, who is tiddler in comparison to the notoriety surrounding Ken Anderson, was 'outed' a number of times in the Bolton News by Iles colleagues, even though Iles seem to keep such information continually under his hat for reasons only known to himself.  I'm sure he wouldn't be so shy if his nemesis Mr Anderson ended up in confinement at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Similarly if Anderson is found later on to having broken any Company Laws that leads to a Directors Ban or forced into Bankruptcy or the insolvency of his company, then full details and explanations can be simply found freely here -

https://www.gov.uk/search-the-register-of-disqualified-company-directors

If Anderson is not found guilty at court or banned as a Director, then he's not done anything wrong in law.

No matter what you or anyone else may think or believe.

You start to get into very deep water indeed when you decide to set your standards and actions thereof, higher than the law and I would advice anyone not to go down this path no matter how much you may detest the person.

As I've said above if anyone has any knowledge of Anderson doing any illegal and improper actions then take them to the police.

Simple as that really.

I'm free to set my personal standards of acceptable behaviour wherever I please Sluffy as is anyone else in this country. The only point at which the law is concerned is if I make defamatory remarks or allegations of illegal behaviour which I can't subsequently prove before a court. As I'm not going to do that, I'm not going to get in deep water, although I am grateful for you concern nonetheless. 

As to the point about what information is publicly available, then by definition its publicly available. Anyone however who has more than a passing interest in financial affairs will know that some things are not publicly available and may not be reflected in the filed accounts or other statements. 

 

1 hour ago, Roger_Dubuis said:

What is the timescale in matters like this?

For example in Ken's case when he was banned from being a company director from 2005 - 2013,  how long had he been committing offences before he was caught and subsequently banned for 8 years?

Not sure what timescales you are referring to but I understand the Administrator has to write a report on the Directors actions whilst running the company within four months of Admin taking place.  If anything untoward is found I don't know the timescale of when actions need to take place following the Administrators report.

I also have no idea of what tariffs are issued for what offences but I guess he must have done something major to receive an eight year ban.

There's reference to him nearly being arrested in this article -

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jan/09/bolton-ken-anderson-efl-ownership-forest-green-christian-doidge

However he did serve his ban, which in turn led to him being able to pass the EFL's current Fit and Proper Test and thus became the clubs owner in a legal and proper way.

I do understand the widespread anger of him but I still keep coming back to what actual proof is there that he's done anything improper or illegal as per the law.

If he has then throw the book at him but until then he's legally done nothing wrong and I simply prefer to deal with facts than the hatred.

I again apologise to those who think I'm odd or weird for doing so.

1 hour ago, snowball said:

Probably find sluffer the fluffer entertaining an' all

The guy who gave me a permanent ban on his website? Oh yeah, he's a bundle of laughs.

11 minutes ago, ProfessorWoland said:

I'm free to set my personal standards of acceptable behaviour wherever I please Sluffy as is anyone else in this country. The only point at which the law is concerned is if I make defamatory remarks or allegations of illegal behaviour which I can't subsequently prove before a court. As I'm not going to do that, I'm not going to get in deep water, although I am grateful for you concern nonetheless. 

As to the point about what information is publicly available, then by definition its publicly available. Anyone however who has more than a passing interest in financial affairs will know that some things are not publicly available and may not be reflected in the filed accounts or other statements. 

 

You can do what you want mate, I'm not here to judge you or anyone else.

I just prefer not to put myself above the law, that's my standard of acceptable behaviour that I set for myself.

Loads go on behind closed doors in all walks of life and we certainly don't live in a perfect world but I suggest knowing that there has been wrong doing and being able to prove there has, probably explains why a fair chunk of stuff never get's taken to court.

We can only play the hand we've been dealt the best we can.

I'm more than confident that the Administrator will do his job properly and report fully any illegalities he finds in his undertaking.

I'm equally sure if the proper offices believe they can prove the illegalities then they will do and sanctions will be made accordingly.

As I keep saying if anyone has anything to prove Anderson as acted illegally then take it to the police - I can't be clearer than that to demonstrate I'm not here to defend Anderson - I never have been despite what many have thought - and probably will continue to do.

Until then Anderson is innocent in the eyes of the law whether you, me or the man in the moon likes it or not.  

That's just how it works.

 

As regards Anderson doing something improper, it's unlikely that anything will come out although there's a slight chance if and when we get a new buyer and the accounts are published and a greater chance if we go into liquidation as there would probably be a post mortem to the scandal.

That said, in the meanwhile there is nothing wrong in folk writing down their concerns and suspicions about what's gone on on a chat forum as they represent personal opinions which is the whole point of a forum.

 

40 minutes ago, ProfessorWoland said:

I'm free to set my personal standards of acceptable behaviour wherever I please Sluffy as is anyone else in this country. The only point at which the law is concerned is if I make defamatory remarks or allegations of illegal behaviour which I can't subsequently prove before a court. As I'm not going to do that, I'm not going to get in deep water, although I am grateful for you concern nonetheless.

Here's the thing, this is our site, and it's us that the law come to. And have done on more than one occassion. So say whatever you like, but not on here.

Nothing illegal about expressing a concern, perception or opinion providing it's couched in the right language - "allegedly" or "I reckon" etc.

As regards Anderson, the law only deals with acts that contravene existing statutes and if he turns out to be a conman/asset stripper or whatever, surely someone with his experience would use a strategy that remains within the existing law to avoid being prosecuted again - loopholes. So there is always the possibility that he could have .e.g. engineered the demise of our club for personal gain without contravening the word of the law.

That would be legal but not necessarily morally correct and unfortunately English Law is not all it's cracked up to be and doesn't cope well with people who have the resources to exploit and work around it.

I'll bow to your superior legal knowledge as I'm not qualified to question that. If you are offering your services free next time the phone goes and have the requisite qualifications then fair play. However, until then, my point still stands.

I believe the problems which lead to Anderson's 8 year disqualification occurred between 2001 and October 2004, when the company was dissolved.

It would be difficult to rely on an expired ban to justify excluding someone if the alternative was winding up a founder member of the league, but perhaps an amber light rather than a green one may have been appropriate. 

20 minutes ago, Carlos said:

I'll bow to your superior legal knowledge as I'm not qualified to question that. If you are offering your services free next time the phone goes and have the requisite qualifications then fair play. However, until then, my point still stands.

Think you're backing the wrong horse if you believe this one is a legal expert.

My issue with him on Nuts was his abuse initially of Anderson that I considered was getting so extreme that I feared we might have our phone ringing.  His abuse then spilled over at me for now allowing his free speech about his 'opinions' of Mr A.

He is clearly wrong with his continuing assertion that Anderson could in effect deliberately drive the club into insolvency for his own personal benefit, the forensic accounting would certainly pick that up and there is obviously a reason why the Administrator brought ten accountants in with him to look through the books.

Anyway a new start for him on here, hope he makes the most of it. I've no hard feelings towards him.

Just now, Sluffy said:

Think you're backing the wrong horse if you believe this one is a legal expert. 

I clearly don't believe that. I've made our stance clear however.

2 hours ago, Carlos said:

Here's the thing, this is our site, and it's us that the law come to. And have done on more than one occassion. So say whatever you like, but not on here.

 

 

Is there anything I've written which you are concerned about? I've not posted anything which could expose either myself or the site to action and have no intention of doing so.

If you have a concern please let me now either here or via PM.  Regards. 

 

1 hour ago, Carlos said:

I clearly don't believe that. I've made our stance clear however.

Sluffy doesn't get sarcasm. Or humour. Or differentiating between opinion and factual statement when it doesn't suit his mission to be revered as "an authority" by strangers on the internet. He does ask some interesting questions from time to time though - usually ones that can't be answered without inside knowledge.

I'm just glad to see we've reached the 'well has he done anything legally wrong though' stage of Ken fandom. Having gone through years of denial and being angry at literally everybody else except Ken.

Means acceptance can't be too far away.

 

3 hours ago, Hoppy510 said:

The guy who gave me a permanent ban on his website? Oh yeah, he's a bundle of laughs.

Old friends from another website? Whod have thought it?

Getting more like Bolton News comments section on here unfortunately. Same few sad people arguing with each other. 

1 hour ago, Tombwfc said:

I'm just glad to see we've reached the 'well has he done anything legally wrong though' stage of Ken fandom. Having gone through years of denial and being angry at literally everybody else except Ken.

Means acceptance can't be too far away.

 

Assume this is aimed at me?

If so I've not been on this forum for a period of time until some months back so you've clearly not been following my work on here.

The only other place I posted during Anderson's ownership is at Nuts, so I guess you must be referring to there.

For what it matters I've never been 'angry' with anyone, even in real life, I'm a bit of a cold fish if truth be told, I'm certainly far more cerebral and analytical, than hot-head and emotional.  This manifests itself in to how I act and behave, namely rationally, sensibly, responsibly, etc, so no, I've never been in denial about Ken or anyone else.  I prefer facts to fiction, reason to wild speculation, detail to guesswork.

It's just how I am.

So thank you for following me around, being a frequent poster on here to (for reasons known unto yourself) constantly have a little pop at me and to make out that I'm somehow weird for holding the view that someone is innocent until proven guilty - even if that person is Ken Anderson.

I've never moved from that position from his first day at the club, and it is still the position I hold - as he's not been found guilty of anything three years later - despite all and sundry seeking to bring him down.

No doubt he's not easy to do business with and may well be the most unpopular man in Bolton but that doesn't mean he's done anything wrong in the running of his business.

If it pleases you to think I've changed my views then think that - I haven't.  If you want to believe I'm his biggest fan, then believe that.  If you get your fun by attempting to berate/ridicule me, then carry on, I can't stop you.

But we all know that it is actually you who is the man on a mission and you with the obsession in regards to Anderson - and not I.

Have a nice day.