Tonge moor green jacket Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 He said he was seeking additional investment. Never materialised. He might have tried, but did he really try that hard? He did cut costs, but did he go far enough? Always seemed to be able to bring in another has been player. Ken always had a plaster for every sore, and pissed off everyone he dealt with en route. The club might have been in an irreversible decline, it why drag it on so long? We could have taken the points hit last season, be under new ownership and ready for the off now. A lot of ifs and buts, though whichever way you look at it, his ownership was a disaster, he blamed everyone else for his own failings, and just enhanced his cuntish reputation.
Mounts Kipper Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 15 minutes ago, Sluffy said: I suggest you look at the clubs published accounts as it is clear that expenditure and wages were in fact reduced under Anderson. The simple fact is which no one can get away from is that the club costs more to run than the money it generates - that can't be shown more clearly than the new owners having to show proof that they can fund the expected TRADING LOSS for the next TWO YEARS. If you're so clever, how would you have managed things any better? How would you have kept the club running without the money coming in to pay the debts and no one wanted to buy the club because of the debts they would have to clear (assuming they were going to be a decent owner)? For a start you wouldn’t pay yourself when the business wasn’t making profit. Your defence of Anderson is ridiculous, can you just fuck of back to your own website you wanker.
Guest Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 17 minutes ago, Sluffy said: I suggest you look at the clubs published accounts as it is clear that expenditure and wages were in fact reduced under Anderson. The simple fact is which no one can get away from is that the club costs more to run than the money it generates - that can't be shown more clearly than the new owners having to show proof that they can fund the expected TRADING LOSS for the next TWO YEARS. If you're so clever, how would you have managed things any better? How would you have kept the club running without the money coming in to pay the debts and no one wanted to buy the club because of the debts they would have to clear (assuming they were going to be a decent owner)? I agree the club costs more to run than it can make. You won't have me arguing otherwise. But building as much goodwill as possible is important when you are struggling. Ken did the opposite. Trying to hardball everyone. Flat out not paying anyone. Instead of honesty and an open approach - he tried to keep a lid on it so he could sell it for a quick buck and pass the problem on. He could have appealed to local businesses for support, even investment in return for some equity. He could have placed the business into administration once it was clear there was no other way out. He could have tried to seek support from people like Michael James - but instead what he did was sign deals he knew couldn't be honoured then refused to pay, then blamed everyone else.
tomski Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 37 minutes ago, Boothy said: As Sluffy said, it's there in black and white. I was just replying to the post that implied he hasn't put money in when that clearly is disproved here. I'm not contesting the morals of the bloke or discussing how he came to do it but this proves that he has injected money into the business in order to become a secured creditor. Or that he has his name attached to money injected into the club.
barrycowdrill Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 If one debt typifies the state of affairs then its money owed to Macron i was always brought up thinking that a Kit supplier contract is a revenue stream for a club however we owe them money 😂 money we should be forwarding to Macron as their cut of shirt sales has gone somewhere else fuck knows where considering no one else had been paid
Eavesy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 16 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: For a start you wouldn’t pay yourself when the business wasn’t making profit. Your defence of Anderson is ridiculous, can you just fuck of back to your own website you wanker. So you’re saying every owner of every business that isn’t making a profit should stop drawing a wage? Was the remit when Anderson came in to turn us into a profit making company? Or to survive and reduce losses?
Eavesy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, barrycowdrill said: If one debt typifies the state of affairs then its money owed to Macron i was always brought up thinking that a Kit supplier contract is a revenue stream for a club however we owe them money 😂 money we should be forwarding to Macron as their cut of shirt sales has gone somewhere else fuck knows where considering no one else had been paid A perfect example of bad deals agreed prior to Anderson
Big Johnny Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 But the FV consortium must have known about this level of Debt as they paid 25000 to see the books So they must have money to sort this out and money for the running of the club in the future
Mounts Kipper Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Eavesy said: So you’re saying every owner of every business that isn’t making a profit should stop drawing a wage? Was the remit when Anderson came in to turn us into a profit making company? Or to survive and reduce losses? It’s now clear he had plan A reduce debt and outgoings and try to sell for a profit. plan B was if plan A fails, rip out as much money as possible, and run in to into liquidation, while lining his pockets. Edited July 10, 2019 by Mounts Kipper
birch-chorley Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 43 minutes ago, Sluffy said: Yes we should have broken even, maybe even have a small profit from the season before last when we sold Madine - just as I've wrote above. Mounts, don't let your hatred get in the way of your reasoning. How much was the Madine sale, £6m? If that’s the gap between us breaking even then we were a business losing £6m a year Whats our income been in the championship? (excluding player transfer fees like Madine). I was of the impression that it would be circa £14m (it was £8m in League 1, additional championship money circa £6m) For the club to be losing £6m a year our outgoings would have to be in the region of £20m a year surely? But then again you’ve previously said that you believe the current wage bill to be circa £700k a month, which would be less than £10m a year so other costs would need to be £10m? What were the other costs in League 1 coming to, £6m Doesn't seem to add up to me
birch-chorley Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, Eavesy said: A perfect example of bad deals agreed prior to Anderson Thanks Donald
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said: He said he was seeking additional investment. Never materialised. He might have tried, but did he really try that hard? He did cut costs, but did he go far enough? Always seemed to be able to bring in another has been player. Ken always had a plaster for every sore, and pissed off everyone he dealt with en route. The club might have been in an irreversible decline, it why drag it on so long? We could have taken the points hit last season, be under new ownership and ready for the off now. A lot of ifs and buts, though whichever way you look at it, his ownership was a disaster, he blamed everyone else for his own failings, and just enhanced his cuntish reputation. Could have, would have, should have... I suspect that Eddie was the reason why we never entered Administration before now - indeed he loaned Anderson the £5m to pay off BM rather than simply go into Admin at that time. I suspect Eddie would have even prevented it this time if he was still alive. Thing is though we are where we are. I get why so many people hate Anderson, I do. I've no reason to disbelieve the many accounts as to how reprehensible he was/is but the bottom line to which I keep returning to is that the club cannot pay its way - and even when it exits Administration will still trade in DEFICITE for the next TWO YEARS under the new owners. That's what the model for modern football is but for whatever reason Eddie had, we ended up with an owner who clearly would not put his own personal wealth into a club he took on, with another person (Holdsworth) who clear had no personal wealth to put into it from the very start - hence the BM loan. I can't imagine Eddie wouldn't have known this, yet he still proceeded to sell the club - one can only assume that he was either desperate to get rid, or intended to stay on in the background somehow. Holdsworth did very well out of his stay as owner - very well indeed, and Ken kept the club going - a club with an ongoing trading deficite which projects at least two years into the future at this point in time today - until Eddie expectantly died and the financial shit well and truly hit the fan from Christmas onwards. There was no one left willing to pay the bills from their own pocket. If people want to blame the entirety of what has happened on Anderson down to Ken, well that's up to them but I don't believe anything other than Administration was avoidable from that point on - and what a few people tend to overlook was than only a few people could actually do that - and they decided not to for several months before they eventually acted. I can only conclude they must have had their own respective reasons for doing so. The bottom line again is that the club simply ran out of money and despite all the hype to the contrary the Administrator doesn't seem to have found Anderson guilty of plundering the club of all its money and leaving nothing for anyone else.
tomski Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 15 minutes ago, Eavesy said: So you’re saying every owner of every business that isn’t making a profit should stop drawing a wage? Was the remit when Anderson came in to turn us into a profit making company? Or to survive and reduce losses? He really achieved neither.
Boothy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, tomski said: Or that he has his name attached to money injected into the club. So it's his liability? Are we in agreement then? Or are you saying someone gave him money to put his name to it and he then invested? People need to stop being so blinkered. Again, I am not saying that he is morally or ethically right or wrong. We all know where he sits on the spectrum. Edited July 10, 2019 by Boothy
Boothy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said: It doesn't. It means he is owed money by the business. So are Carrs pasties - it doesn't prove Carrs pasties "stuck money in". Carr's Pasties (if they're on the list) are an unsecured creditor. KA is a secured creditor. Hopefully this answers your point? For clarity, I assume you have no problem with the fact that the other secured creditors did indeed put money into the Club?
HomerJay Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said: I’ll bet he’s taken more out than he’s put in, that means in my world he’s put fuck all in. that would have been picked up by the administrators and taking into consideration wouldnt it? ie you cant take 1m in wages, then loan it back and expect to be paid.
Jol_BWFC Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, HomerJay said: ie you cant take 1m in wages, then loan it back and expect to be paid. Why not? If he’s entitled to £1m in wages (for argument’s sake, let’s assume he is), then that’s his money. If he takes it but then loans it back by way of director’s loan, he is owed £1m by the club.
HomerJay Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said: Perhaps he should have been thinking about that before committing to more bills we couldn't afford. Perhaps he could have tried some honesty in the first place. Perhaps there were people who might have helped out had Ken been up front. And perhaps given we couldn't afford to pay our bills he should have done the right thing and got the business into administration months before EDT finally did. have ever run a business (not a dig, a genuine question)? shit is just not that easy, even it a "normal" business where success is based on sales. even harder in football, considering it all depends on something you have fuck all control of. ie football results. its no coincidence that pretty all clubs make a loss. but many are subsidised by owners. ken could afford to do that. would you have put all you cash into support bwfc? Edited July 10, 2019 by HomerJay
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 28 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said: I agree the club costs more to run than it can make. You won't have me arguing otherwise. But building as much goodwill as possible is important when you are struggling. Ken did the opposite. Trying to hardball everyone. Flat out not paying anyone. Instead of honesty and an open approach - he tried to keep a lid on it so he could sell it for a quick buck and pass the problem on. He could have appealed to local businesses for support, even investment in return for some equity. He could have placed the business into administration once it was clear there was no other way out. He could have tried to seek support from people like Michael James - but instead what he did was sign deals he knew couldn't be honoured then refused to pay, then blamed everyone else. What deals did he sign that he knew couldn't be honoured, as I'm sure the Administrator would love to know. Can't have been the Doidge deal as the Administrator would have looked at that being one of the football creditors he would have been dealing with. What do you think he should have told the local business people something like "look folks, the club has run out of money, it looks as though we will be running at a loss for the next two years as well but carry on supplying us and the club will pay you back in another three or four years" - what do you thing the suppliers might reply? What equity would he offered people, a share of a club £25m plus in debt, with projected losses for at least a further two years - so no hope for a return on your investment anytime soon - how many do you think would snatch his hand off for such a great deal as that? As I've posted above others could have placed the club in Administration a great deal sooner also - clearly everyone had their reasons for not doing so! He would clearly have spoken to EDT, James and Warburton as the principle secured creditors - it's unthinkable he wouldn't have. I'm still waiting as to how one as clever as you would have managed things any better because the club simply costs more to run than the money that it was making - and with Eddie no longer being there, there was only one way things could possibly go.
Guest Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, HomerJay said: have ever run a business (not a dig, a genuine question)? shit is just not that easy, even it a "normal" business where success is based on sales. even harder in football, considering it all depends on something you have fuck all control of. ie football results. its no coincidence that pretty all clubs make a loss. but many are subsidised by owners. ken could afford to do that. would you have put all you cash into support bwfc? Hang on - I'm not saying he should just plough his own cash in. I'm questioning the way the club was run - given it was public knowledge we were losing money. I think people trying to pretend Ken was a benevolent, well intentioned owner of a small business who found himself out of his depth should change careers and work for one of the political parties - because clearly you are masters of spin.
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 49 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: For a start you wouldn’t pay yourself when the business wasn’t making profit. Your defence of Anderson is ridiculous, can you just fuck of back to your own website you wanker. Ever the petulant child I see. Have a nice day.
tomski Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 14 minutes ago, Boothy said: So it's his liability? Are we in agreement then? Or are you saying someone gave him money to put his name to it and he then invested? People need to stop being so blinkered. Again, I am not saying that he is morally or ethically right or wrong. We all know where he sits on the spectrum. I think it’s widely accepted a lot of people chipped in for ken. ED for paying wages ED for 5m blu marble Michael James to pay staff however much Brett Warburton for something else. Pfa for player wages.
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said: Hang on - I'm not saying he should just plough his own cash in. I'm questioning the way the club was run - given it was public knowledge we were losing money. I think people trying to pretend Ken was a benevolent, well intentioned owner of a small business who found himself out of his depth should change careers and work for one of the political parties - because clearly you are masters of spin. Eh? Nobody is saying anything like that. You may well be questioning how the club/business was run but you've clearly shown no knowledge or understanding how to do any better yourself and some of what you posted above is frankly laughable and absurd - 'offer local businessmen equity in a business that isn't capable of paying them'!!! It's you are the one not grounded in reality, not people like Homer and myself. It's you that have set yourself up as a 'know it all' not us.
HomerJay Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 43 minutes ago, Eavesy said: A perfect example of bad deals agreed prior to Anderson correct, he told us how bad that deal was.
Recommended Posts