Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Take Over


Kane57
 Share

Recommended Posts

Aye it annoyed me last time he covered us how much little sam knows about the situation. 

Not just because he’s an ex manager and player but he’s presenting a national radio show and it might be an idea to do a bit of research on the subject instead of sounding like an ill informed slug. 

Edited by gonzo
You don’t need to write in this box
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cheese said:

It wasn't an interview. He's co-presenting. Marc Iles was on, but he basically told Allardyce what was going on, and they both agreed "it needs sorting". 

Ah ok. Don't listen to that station, the presenters do my head in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Aye it annoyed me last time he covered us how much little sam knows about the situation. 

Not just because he’s an ex manager and player but he’s presenting a national radio show and it might be an idea to do a bit of research on the subject instead of sounding like an ill informed slug. 

Edited by Dr Faustus
This
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Aye it annoyed me last time he covered us how much little sam knows about the situation. 

Not just because he’s an ex manager and player but he’s presenting a national radio show and it might be an idea to do a bit of research on the subject instead of sounding like an ill informed slug. 

 He's getting his wedge from talkshite and that's all it is to him. The lack of wider understanding about our situation is par for the course. When we were in the premiership I wasn't following clubs in trouble in league one or understanding the ins and outs of their problems. And I didn't expect the national media to either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Aye it annoyed me last time he covered us how much little sam knows about the situation. 

Not just because he’s an ex manager and player but he’s presenting a national radio show and it might be an idea to do a bit of research on the subject instead of sounding like an ill informed slug. 

Same this morning

youknowwhatimeanlike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
39 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

Ah ok. Don't listen to that station, the presenters do my head in.

Me neither. I can't stand it. Only tuned in for the 10 minutes they did on Bolton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam Allardyce saying we should have just played the game and it would have done the kids good.

The same man who presented evidence that fully grown professionals were incapable of playing at peak performance 3 times a week and complained bitterly about them being asked to.

FFS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

No. Not that he should, but he knows even less than your average Bolton fan on twitter.

He said the main issue was poor EFL governance and specifically the fit and proper owner test not working for Bolton and Bury as the main issue . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

 He's getting his wedge from talkshite and that's all it is to him. The lack of wider understanding about our situation is par for the course. When we were in the premiership I wasn't following clubs in trouble in league one or understanding the ins and outs of their problems. And I didn't expect the national media to either.

 

 

'Sam, it's Alan. Just a heads up, we've lined up Marc Illes from the Bolton news tomorrow morning for a quick chat on what's happening at your former club. I'm sending you the questions I'll be asking and the briefing notes that our researchers sent me. So you're up to speed'

 

...Not even two minutes reading prep before going on air?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Sam Allardyce saying we should have just played the game and it would have done the kids good.

The same man who presented evidence that fully grown professionals were incapable of playing at peak performance 3 times a week and complained bitterly about them being asked to.

FFS. 

Difference between peak performance and forfeiting matches 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/08/2019 at 15:51, Sluffy said:

Thought I'd had this to the debate, Iles comment from his article today - 

"Whether Football Ventures, Ken Anderson, Michael James, Eddie Davies’s Trust – governed by solicitor Keir Gordon – or two sets of administrators, nobody is blameless as this mess continues to jeopardise the future of a 145-year-old institution.

Much of the mistrust which has slowed every decision pre-dates administration. The levels of downright greed outweighed only by each protagonist’s desire to maintain their public image".

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17844789.tranmere-rovers-5-bolton-wanderers-0-marc-iless-match-verdict/

Lets take as a given Ken is one of the 'greedy' protagonists, then who else is he calling out?

Not the Administrators as he says he predates Administration which leaves FV, EDT and/or Michael James.

I hardly think EDT can be seen to be greedy, they've already written off over £200m on the club, which would then leave just FV and/or MJ?

What is he trying to say - and what would happen to the club if one or both walked away now instead?

Seems Iles is saying the core problem is between EDT and James/Richard Gee!

Possibly explains a lot if he is right such as the two Administrators reason was probably not to protect Anderson's position as we had all been thinking but James's?  I guess also James/PBP isn't taking a hit on money tied up in the hotel to help FV of which he is a Director of - as that's the only way I can interpret Iles comments about him (main player) not giving FV 100% backing?  Nor I suppose EDT bending over backwards financially to let FV in, with Janes on board?

If that's the case no wonder Parkinson is pleading for them to sit down and sort things out?

Nice of our esteemed journalist to tell us about this now after this 'feud' has been going on for at least four years to when Eddie decided to pull the plug and James put money in instead in the form of the PBP loans.

Anyway an extract from his article today -

"What is beyond doubt, however, is that the main players in this saga have yet to give long-time front runners Football Ventures their 100 per cent backing.
Keir Gordon, the solicitor who has looked after the trust of late owner Eddie Davies, Ken Anderson, the club’s outgoing owner, and Football Ventures director, Michael James – flanked by his advisor, and ex-Wanderers director, Richard Gee, have been locked in a Mexican stand-off for too long.
 
Animosity between those involved pre-dates administration. The back-biting originated when Davies first began moves to sell up and continued all the way through the stormy Anderson era".
 
Edited by Sluffy
Grammar errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So one minute Iles can't be believed or trusted because he knows nothing and the next ....

To paraphrase Eric Cantona..... all the leeches are devouring the host and none of them are prepared to forego a meal in order to keep the host alive so they can all feed another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that differently than you sluffy and wouldn’t find it unusual to have an article mention the two largest secured creditors such as EDT and PBP (or MJ as Iles seems to point out even though he is acting in the interest of both PBP and FV and not personally although granted he does stand to lose or gain personally). 

It is possible that PBP are being obstructive in the hotel sale but again we don’t know This for sure. But would you be i their situation? Possibly. And how much of PBP’s actions are actually dictated by MJ seeing as though he’s a minority shareholder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

Really - please do expand 

Well it's clear that there is two Administrations for a reason, it's just trying to figure out what that reason is.

Must be to protect the position of Anderson and/or James/PBP no doubt.

We've all been assuming it was to protect Anderson's position - but what if it was more about James's/PBP's instead.

Clearly it would have been better for all if there was only one Administrator for everything but next best would if there was a 'friendly' (shall we say) Administrator for the hotel and James/PBP was equally in a position to appoint an Administrator - so why not do so?

Yes he was a Director in FV at the time but they had walked away from a deal for the club pre-Admin and James could always have resigned and had a proxy in his place as a Director/owner, if there were obvious future conflicts of interests arising.

Also what actual position did Anderson actually have to protect?  

On the face of it his secured creditor status did not amount to anything much - James first call with his secured £5.5m seemed to take the entire value of the hotel at market value at the time.  Was he certain he could manipulate some sort of a bidding war to get the price up?

If not then why take on the costs of Administration then?

He did though, so why was that?  He wasn't getting any more from the club Administrator so I guess he was doing it as a spoiler to stop the FV plan of buying the hotel and leverage a potential pay out to go away - which seemed too be exactly what happened at one stage in this sorry saga.

We come back again as to why didn't James/PBP simply prevent this by appointing the Administrator than letting Ken?

Maybe his motive was that if he did and he obtained the hotel for less than the £5.5m secured - then he (PBP) has lost money.

Which would seemed to have been the case under just one Administrator for everything

Maybe the thinking was that Ken's aims of pushing up the value of the hotel beyond the £5.5m were to the advantage of James/PBP as well, and if Anderson took on the Administration costs so much the better.

Perhaps James/PBP wanted from all of this was just simply to get their money back and was on board with FV as one way of doing it with a development of the land and property (being a Director of FV as only cost him £2 so far, plus a few costs I would imagine) and at the same time happy enough for the hotel to be sold to whoever for £5.5m plus (whilst not funding Admin).

Of course just pure speculation on my part but unless someone can shoot it down, then as good as reason as any I suggest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

Really - please do expand 

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. EDT appointed Rubins to collect what they were owed but it left Anderson open to substantial loss, so he needed Quantuma.

I expect Richard Gee was closely involved with the PBP deals on the club's behalf, at a cost to PBP of c. £12m in 2016. Gee resigned as a director of both BL and BWFC in May 2016 later being paid more than £100K in compensation. The club was skint so its unlikely that Anderson was ecstatic at having to find the dosh but it was a long way short of the money he had to find to see Holdsworth off.

If there was any friction between Michael James and Eddie, it didn't stop Michael attending Eddie's memorial service. The Anderson's didn't and neither did Holdsworth nor Allardyce.

Edited by Chris Custodiet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chris Custodiet said:

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. EDT appointed Rubins to collect what they were owed but it left Anderson open to substantial loss, so he needed Quantuma.

I expect Richard Gee was closely involved with the PBP deals on the club's behalf, at a cost to PBP of c. £12m in 2016. Gee resigned as a director of both BL and BWFC in May 2016 later being paid more than £100K in compensation. The club was skint so its unlikely that Anderson was ecstatic at having to find the dosh but it was a long way short of the money he he had to find to see Holdsworth off.

If there was any friction beteween Michael James and Eddie, it didn't stop Michael attending Eddie's memorial service. The Anderson's didn't and neither did Holdsworth nor Allardyce.

Think the article states the friction is between Gordon and James. 

Perhaps Gordon thought James took ED for a ride? Who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unpinned
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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