The breaking News thread...

[thebish]

I think he (BWFCi) has actually raised some valid points that no-one has really either argued or disproven by simply taking a contrary position.

The scant amount of evidence that we have before us would suggest that ED is putting his own interests before those of the club - otherwise he would still be bankrolling us whilst a suitable buyer was found, rather than making the club's staff and HMRC dangle for their money.

Its of little consequence that he can do what he likes as the owner. BWFCi raised the point of whose interests they seemed to be acting in. It seems clear that, with the evidence we have, its 1) ED 2) Club.

I don't think a case is made any the more convincing simply by adding the phrase "it seems clear that"

I don't think what you have typed makes it clear that there is an obvious 1) ED 2) Club priority in ED's actions. He has managed to keep the club alive and ensure that the staff and players are paid whilst continuing ongoing negotiations with potential buyers in an attempt to discover the best way forward. You could just as easily interpret what we know of events to conclude that ED is taking a balanced approach to his own personal interests and the club's interests without any "clear" priority. within that - as you have suggested - there are a whole load of "interests" - the tea lady, the HMRC, the players, the manager, ED, the office staff, and (as Spotty would splutter) - the full time chaplain - none of those on there own necessarily lines up entirely with "the club's" best interests.

[Bruce Rioja]

It seems clear that, with the evidence we have, its 1) ED 2) Club.

Err, well yes, quite. We can see quite clearly that that's exactly what he's taking page upon page to say. But hey, thanks

[Lost Leopard Spot]

(as Spotty would splutter)

"splutter" he splutters - you've even got me spluttering in the third person. I don't splutter, I speak assiduously I'll have you know!

[Lord Kangana]

I think he (BWFCi) has actually raised some valid points that no-one has really either argued or disproven by simply taking a contrary position.

The scant amount of evidence that we have before us would suggest that ED is putting his own interests before those of the club - otherwise he would still be bankrolling us whilst a suitable buyer was found, rather than making the club's staff and HMRC dangle for their money.

Its of little consequence that he can do what he likes as the owner. BWFCi raised the point of whose interests they seemed to be acting in. It seems clear that, with the evidence we have, its 1) ED 2) Club.

I'll agree that ED is mainly looking out for ED. I don't think it follows that either Birch or the directors are necessarily looking out for EDs interests ahead of the club.
The scant amount of information we have isn't evidence, not even scant evidence, of any scenario. It might just as well be likely that there is no movement because the 'offers' from the consortia are utter tripe. I'm not arguing they are, just saying they might be... but I'm not going on and on and on about it for page after page exploring every tiny angle of attack to get back to very same meaningless speculation constantly.

I would say that the evidence of a day in court over an unpaid tax bill with a potential winding up order is indeed still evidence, scant as it may be.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think he (BWFCi) has actually raised some valid points that no-one has really either argued or disproven by simply taking a contrary position.

The scant amount of evidence that we have before us would suggest that ED is putting his own interests before those of the club - otherwise he would still be bankrolling us whilst a suitable buyer was found, rather than making the club's staff and HMRC dangle for their money.

Its of little consequence that he can do what he likes as the owner. BWFCi raised the point of whose interests they seemed to be acting in. It seems clear that, with the evidence we have, its 1) ED 2) Club.

I'll agree that ED is mainly looking out for ED. I don't think it follows that either Birch or the directors are necessarily looking out for EDs interests ahead of the club.
The scant amount of information we have isn't evidence, not even scant evidence, of any scenario. It might just as well be likely that there is no movement because the 'offers' from the consortia are utter tripe. I'm not arguing they are, just saying they might be... but I'm not going on and on and on about it for page after page exploring every tiny angle of attack to get back to very same meaningless speculation constantly.

I would say that the evidence of a day in court over an unpaid tax bill with a potential winding up order is indeed still evidence, scant as it may be.

Evidence of the first half of your premise, yes. It's the connection to the rest I'm saying isn't proven, but mere speculation.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Anyway some breaking news: David Squires in the Guardian is on the case. NB spot the mistakes (I saw at least two)

EDIT: sorry meant to put a link to the url up, not the actual cartoon (don't want to infringe copyright now do we).
http://www.theguardian.com/football/pic ... -wanderers

[Worthy4England]

I think he (BWFCi) has actually raised some valid points that no-one has really either argued or disproven by simply taking a contrary position.

The scant amount of evidence that we have before us would suggest that ED is putting his own interests before those of the club - otherwise he would still be bankrolling us whilst a suitable buyer was found, rather than making the club's staff and HMRC dangle for their money.

Its of little consequence that he can do what he likes as the owner. BWFCi raised the point of whose interests they seemed to be acting in. It seems clear that, with the evidence we have, its 1) ED 2) Club.

Don't agree - the scant amount of "evidence" shows us bugger all. The plethora of hyperbole and speculation suggests that ED is putting his own interests before those of the club.

[Enoch]

Don't agree - the incredible amount of "bollocks and bullshit" shows us bugger all.

I't ain't even funny any more.

Be reet.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

As ever I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of Kangana/Insano, and LLS et al. Whilst I think that Birch is doing a decent job and not necessarily putting ED before the club (or vice versa), I don't think ED is as benevolent as he had us believing until the past 12 months or so. Lifelong fan or not he will want to get as much of his investment back as possible, which is why I think even SSC are apparently losing patience with these supposedly moving goalposts as Iles calls it.
.

Well strangely enough, although you have me at one end of a spectrum here, when you spell out the middle ground it's pretty much what I've been saying, innit? The only marginally difference is that I wouldn't have that vice versa there, otherwise if you're a candidate you've got my vote amigo.

[Bruce Rioja]

NB spot the mistakes (I saw at least two)

Starting a sentence with 'But', and also a misspelling, 'empoyer'.

[Enoch]

NB spot the mistakes (I saw at least two)

Starting a sentence with 'But', and also a misspelling, 'empoyer'.

He's not very good at elephants is he.

I don't think Bertie Bassett is an Addick.

[Bruce Rioja]

He's not very good at elephants is he.

I missed that!

[Enoch]

cartoonists are generally quite clever and witty, so I reviewed it and now reckon it's done on purpose as a (northern) white rhino as a nod to our possible extinction.

I wondered about subtlety, but it's the Guardian.

Maybe he drew it for Punch but they rejected it.

[Jugs]

Some people think ED is holding out for a better deal for himself, while others think he's just implementing good business sense by holding out for the best deal for BWFC. What's clear is that he and the club have handled this 'sale' terribly. From not paying staff and players to potentially selling half our squad in the bargain bins, the transition from one owner to another has been bloody awful.

[thebish]

aye - but we haven't actually sold ANYONE yet, have we?

[BWFC_Insane]

I wonder how you'd feel if you were a member of staff at the Macron hearing that Eddie was blocking a deal that could inject money into the business that would mean you had pay for the next 6 months?

Also as an aside the fact that LK and I finally agree on something related to Bolton Wanderers must surely be a milestone of some sort?

[Lord Kangana]

He's not very good at elephants is he.

I missed that!

Its got a falling down castle on it, a broken rose and tattered livery... so unfortunately I'm calling intended.

[Lord Kangana]

And I wasn't actually agreeing with you per se, just pointing out that you've made a point, that seems to fit with the tiny amount of evidence that we have at our disposal, and everyone else has simply spent several pages gainsaying it without actually providing any evidence to the contrary. "Oh no it isn't" doesn't really cut it for me. So for the moment I'm more convinced by your conclusion than others. More is a relative thing, btw, I'd have used something pejorative like utterly if I thought it were the only possible explanation.

[thebish]

I wonder how you'd feel if you were a member of staff at the Macron hearing that Eddie was blocking a deal that could inject money into the business that would mean you had pay for the next 6 months?

I wonder how you'd feel if you were a member of staff at the Macron hearing that Eddie was rushing into a deal that meant you'd get paid tomorrow on time but the deal involved voracious asset-strippers and you might get laid off the day after tomorrow.

as someone once said... errr... I forget who... "Unless you know what Eddie wants and what the plan is, and you don't, then you cannot possibly know that either way."

[thebish]

And I wasn't actually agreeing with you per se,

too late now for such feeble distancing protestations! you two are now forever tied together!