Ken Anderson - Old Owner (Definitely. For Ever ..... )

[Hoboh]

I reckon time will tell whose right and wrong in this business, I'm just quietly waiting to find out the true extent the 'hand of' or 'debt to' Eddie still looms over the club.

[Peter Thompson]

Surely this is blatently obvious - it's quite clear that Holdsworth isn't prepared to put any of his own money into the club and you can't have 2 major shareholders of which only one is willing to put the required cash into the club and the other won't put a penny in.

I mean, it isn't blatant. One can speculate. But given Ken's said he won't be financing the club himself (aside from short term wages etc) and intends to bring in investment, would be good to know why he and Dean cannot both be involved in that...I mean again I can guess....but there are multiple guesses.

What so Ken keeps putting in £800k a month to keep the club going until further investment comes through, whilst Holdsworth sits on his arse and wont contribute a penny to keep the club going but keeps his 40% ? - for me each £800k that Ken puts in on his own whilst Holdsworth doesn't should mean a reduction in Holdsworth's shareholding for me.

Why should KA keep putting in £800k a month, whilst DH doesn't do owt and yet the shareholding is still 60/40....that's ridiculous IMO, also (bluemarble loan at very high interest rate secured against BWFC assets apart) - why on earth would anyone want Holdsworth to still be involved moving forward, as it doesn't look like he does much day to day and what benefit to the club does DH being involved bring ?

[BWFC_Insane]

Surely this is blatently obvious - it's quite clear that Holdsworth isn't prepared to put any of his own money into the club and you can't have 2 major shareholders of which only one is willing to put the required cash into the club and the other won't put a penny in.

I mean, it isn't blatant. One can speculate. But given Ken's said he won't be financing the club himself (aside from short term wages etc) and intends to bring in investment, would be good to know why he and Dean cannot both be involved in that...I mean again I can guess....but there are multiple guesses.

What so Ken keeps putting in £800k a month to keep the club going until further investment comes through, whilst Holdsworth sits on his arse and wont contribute a penny to keep the club going but keeps his 40% ? - for me each £800k that Ken puts in on his own whilst Holdsworth doesn't should mean a reduction in Holdsworth's shareholding for me.

Why should KA keep putting in £800k a month, whilst DH doesn't do owt and yet the shareholding is still 60/40....that's ridiculous IMO, also (bluemarble loan at very high interest rate secured against BWFC assets apart) - why on earth would anyone want Holdsworth to still be involved moving forward, as it doesn't look like he does much day to day and what benefit to the club does DH being involved bring ?

I'm not saying I want DH involved. I mean strip it down, DH "put in" the £5M loan he secured. As far as we know, and based on Ken's own words so far KA has paid 2 or 3 months wages out of his own money.

Now, Ken has said he wants to bring in "other investors". Fine, because KA as far as we know, doesn't have the wealth to carry on supporting the club.

My point is that given the deal was financed by sports shield's loan, seemingly entirely. And once that cash has run out Ken has stepped in. Why can't investment, be brought in before Holdsworth goes?

KA is clearly our best bet as he seems a savvy operator. But lets not forget that DH claimed a couple of months back that KA hadn't put in what he promised. KA's answer was he'll stick it in when needed which he seemingly has. But still, it isn't an entirely accurate picture to say one side has done all they promised and the other hasn't. DH put the loan in he said he would. Which may be a bad deal, but one KA came on board with, knowing the score.

[Peter Thompson]

Surely this is blatently obvious - it's quite clear that Holdsworth isn't prepared to put any of his own money into the club and you can't have 2 major shareholders of which only one is willing to put the required cash into the club and the other won't put a penny in.

I mean, it isn't blatant. One can speculate. But given Ken's said he won't be financing the club himself (aside from short term wages etc) and intends to bring in investment, would be good to know why he and Dean cannot both be involved in that...I mean again I can guess....but there are multiple guesses.

What so Ken keeps putting in £800k a month to keep the club going until further investment comes through, whilst Holdsworth sits on his arse and wont contribute a penny to keep the club going but keeps his 40% ? - for me each £800k that Ken puts in on his own whilst Holdsworth doesn't should mean a reduction in Holdsworth's shareholding for me.

Why should KA keep putting in £800k a month, whilst DH doesn't do owt and yet the shareholding is still 60/40....that's ridiculous IMO, also (bluemarble loan at very high interest rate secured against BWFC assets apart) - why on earth would anyone want Holdsworth to still be involved moving forward, as it doesn't look like he does much day to day and what benefit to the club does DH being involved bring ?

I'm not saying I want DH involved. I mean strip it down, DH "put in" the £5M loan he secured. As far as we know, and based on Ken's own words so far KA has paid 2 or 3 months wages out of his own money.

Now, Ken has said he wants to bring in "other investors". Fine, because KA as far as we know, doesn't have the wealth to carry on supporting the club.

My point is that given the deal was financed by sports shield's loan, seemingly entirely. And once that cash has run out Ken has stepped in. Why can't investment, be brought in before Holdsworth goes?

KA is clearly our best bet as he seems a savvy operator. But lets not forget that DH claimed a couple of months back that KA hadn't put in what he promised. KA's answer was he'll stick it in when needed which he seemingly has. But still, it isn't an entirely accurate picture to say one side has done all they promised and the other hasn't. DH put the loan in he said he would. Which may be a bad deal, but one KA came on board with, knowing the score.

Has Holdsworth been making the blumarble monthly repayments out of his own pocket, as opposed to the club ? - because if he hasn't then he still hasn't invested a penny of his own cash

[BWFC_Insane]

Has Holdsworth been making the blumarble monthly repayments out of his own pocket, as opposed to the club ? - because if he hasn't then he still hasn't invested a penny of his own cash

But when Holdsworth put the deal together he was the only option. And we all knew the basis of the deal, broadly at least. Securing a loan against club assets. It was the only deal at the time and had it not been there.....

You seem wedded to the Eddie Davies model of someone with lots of money supporting the club. But KA has explained that isn't viable going forward. KA will be financing us based on investment in the form of loans and possibly equity. Nobody is going to be handing out free money anymore.

And it is worth pointing out, KA says what he's stuck in is "his own money" but we don't really know what that means. Has he borrowed it using personal assets, is it money he has from his investment group etc..... What we do know is him putting money in, is a very short term thing. He's said many times he hasn't the financial resource to do what ED did.

My point in a nutshell is that statement is carefully crafted to make DH out to be the "bad guy". I think it is clear that the deal with which DH bought the club with KA and his investment group is not the deal he ended up with. And ultimately I'm not sure DH ever promised anything beyond the initial investment to keep the club going. Nor did he ever suggest he had a "load of his own money" to invest. What is going on, seems to be that KA has on completion of the deal, grabbed power, and probably managed the club on a better basis than DH would have. And if we take KA for his word, has investment lined up to move us forward. Great. And I hope it gets sorted. But I certainly don't believe all questions are answered or that those statements can entirely be taken at face value.

[TANGODANCER]

I'd love to be able to see where football is in ten years time. The game is really all about greedy agents and crazy money footballers, not a one who can guarantee they won't be injured and spend months out still being paid ludicrous wages (look no further than our own Physio room over the last half-dozen seasons, okay, say ten years, and yes, I know insurance companies are also involved and ask mind-bending premiums). All footballers should be paid on availability at least and wages capped internationaly. Oh, it'll never happen, the country would be empty of African, Spanish and south American footballers, but with ever increasing populations and real estate being the most lucrative segement of every town, how long before visual football invented by the bookies becomes the only game in town..... I know, I'd never get a job like Sepp Blatter and co but it would indeed be interesting to see the future... ..

[Harry Genshaw]

I've been waiting for the bubble to burst for years Tango but it's just not going to happen is it? The recent incident at Birmingham is symptomatic of the madness, where a young successful manager is replaced by a big name with an appalling managerial record, hired on the strength of who is agent is. 3 games 3 losses so far.

[Lord Kangana]

The bubble is bursting for clubs like ourselves who thought they could hang on the coat-tails of the big boys and act like them. The money just isn't there for us outside the CL.

In the not too distant future I could envisage a two-tier system of a small, powerful wealthy elite generating eye-watering revenues from TV and merchandise, and the rest, who live within their means in an old fashioned way, principally by gate receipts and possibly semi-professional, or at least part semi-pro, squads.

[BWFC_Insane]

The bubble is bursting for clubs like ourselves who thought they could hang on the coat-tails of the big boys and act like them. The money just isn't there for us outside the CL.

In the not too distant future I could envisage a two-tier system of a small, powerful wealthy elite generating eye-watering revenues from TV and merchandise, and the rest, who live within their means in an old fashioned way, principally by gate receipts and possibly semi-professional, or at least part semi-pro, squads.

Outside the PL. I mean many teams have made profits in the PL nowadays. Profits, whilst still spending silly transfer fees.

The problem is that once you drop out and lose parachute payments the gap is so wide, how do you ever get back? Sure every so often someone will strike gold with the right manager and players on a budget, but increasingly that will be a rarity and there will be 40 or so teams trying to do that.

I don't agree that any bubble has burst though. The natural cycle of football is just happening and we are on a low ebb that coincides with the money and situation being against us. But take Bournemouth, lower league dwellers who struck gold at exactly the right time. Such is life. The bubble only bursts if suddenly TV deals become less attractive!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Bournemouth struck gold with the sort of cash-happy owners that Financial Fair Play was set up to outlaw... while loudly insisting that it was For The Good Of The Game by stopping rich owners getting bored and killing the toys they're tired of.

If the various types of FFP were implemented - and it's an if, given some of these unsustainable upstarts like Man City may well be able to afford better lawyers - then it would mean only the big clubs could ever spend money. Some of the same big clubs are also now allowed to take the cream of the country's kids for buttons under the Elite Player Performance Plan, another raft of legislation waved through under For The Good Of The Game.

[Dr Hotdog]

Bournemouth? On 12,000 gate receipts every two weeks? Lets talk about Financial Fair Play for a moment...

[BWFC_Insane]

Bournemouth struck gold with the sort of cash-happy owners that Financial Fair Play was set up to outlaw... while loudly insisting that it was For The Good Of The Game by stopping rich owners getting bored and killing the toys they're tired of.

If the various types of FFP were implemented - and it's an if, given some of these unsustainable upstarts like Man City may well be able to afford better lawyers - then it would mean only the big clubs could ever spend money. Some of the same big clubs are also now allowed to take the cream of the country's kids for buttons under the Elite Player Performance Plan, another raft of legislation waved through under For The Good Of The Game.

I said at the time FFP was introduced was a way of maintaining the status quo for big clubs. And so it has proven.

Bournemouth rode the wave of rich owners and hit the premiership at exactly the right time. The money was huge. And they escaped the championship etc. before FFP had a chance to bite them.

They'll come back down at some point. Inevitable. And the key will be if they get back up with parachute money or not.

[Prufrock]

Yep, proven by famous big boys Leicester winning the league last year.

Think it's much closer now than it was 10 years ago, though that's down to the astronomical tv desk and collective bargaining rather than FFP.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yep, proven by famous big boys Leicester winning the league last year.

Think it's much closer now than it was 10 years ago, though that's down to the astronomical tv desk and collective bargaining rather than FFP.

Well the combination of factors that led to Leicester winning it, don't disprove that the financial gap between bottom of the championship and bottom of the PL is increasing. The gap is widening.

FFP may make the premiership more competitive. But then it doesn't really apply to most of that league anyway. (Only CL teams).

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Wanderers have appointed Patricia Anderson, wife of chairman Ken, to the board of directors at Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company - the football arm of Burnden Leisure Ltd.

(per BN)

[Hoboh]

Wanderers have appointed Patricia Anderson, wife of chairman Ken, to the board of directors at Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company - the football arm of Burnden Leisure Ltd.

(per BN)

[malcd1]

We just need Ken's former Page 3 daughter-in-law to join too.

[Andy Waller]

We just need Ken's former Page 3 daughter-in-law to join too.

I'd keep her as far away from Deano as possible....

[Nicko58]

Wanderers have appointed Patricia Anderson, wife of chairman Ken, to the board of directors at Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company - the football arm of Burnden Leisure Ltd.

(per BN)

Can anyone explain to a thicko like me what the significance of this is, if there is any?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Wanderers have appointed Patricia Anderson, wife of chairman Ken, to the board of directors at Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company - the football arm of Burnden Leisure Ltd.

(per BN)

Can anyone explain to a thicko like me what the significance of this is, if there is any?

I don't fully understand the ramifications but it seems the only other directors are Ken and Deano (per bwfc.co.uk).