|
Post by davidm on Feb 19, 2016 20:49:19 GMT
A quote copied from Burden Aces forum:-
"So Eddie has just gone on SSN and said that there are 4 live bids.
Sounds like the preferred bidding thing was journalist nonsense."
I haven't seen Sky Sports News but, if it is true, it seems like there is a distance to go before any takeover. Or is Eddie Davies just playing each one off against each other.
I am totally confused .......... and desperately worried!!!
|
|
|
Post by greydad on Feb 20, 2016 9:09:13 GMT
Which naïve idiot suggested there was "...some clarity of purpose" ? Erm, that would be me, should have known better, but I remain hopeful that good news will prevail, and sooner rather than later, starting with a good result this afternoon!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 11:36:00 GMT
A quote copied from Burden Aces forum:-
"So Eddie has just gone on SSN and said that there are 4 live bids.
Sounds like the preferred bidding thing was journalist nonsense."
I haven't seen Sky Sports News but, if it is true, it seems like there is a distance to go before any takeover. Or is Eddie Davies just playing each one off against each other.
I am totally confused .......... and desperately worried!!! Did you check the post date? I seem to remember this coming out on Wednesday .
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Feb 20, 2016 11:49:13 GMT
A quote copied from Burden Aces forum:-
"So Eddie has just gone on SSN and said that there are 4 live bids.
Sounds like the preferred bidding thing was journalist nonsense."
I haven't seen Sky Sports News but, if it is true, it seems like there is a distance to go before any takeover. Or is Eddie Davies just playing each one off against each other.
I am totally confused .......... and desperately worried!!! Did you check the post date? I seem to remember this coming out on Wednesday . No it was posted yesterday (Friday). As I say, I didn't see Sky Sports News yesterday so can't confirm it
Re: BWFC Takeover News (HMRC Petition Adjourned To 22 Feb) « Reply #751 on: Yesterday at 06:37 PM » So Eddie has just gone on SSN and said that there are 4 live bids.
Sounds like the preferred bidding thing was journalist nonsense.
Marc Iles also said this yesterday in the Bolton News:-
Wanderers were ready to go into administration by the close of business today if they felt the chances of finding a new owner were unlikely. But with Sports Shield racing to complete and at least one other party also making progress in the background, they have ruled that out for now.
Owner Davies tried to calm talk that an agreement was imminent by claiming four parties were still in talks this evening.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Feb 21, 2016 13:43:00 GMT
The takeover farce continues.
If Alan Nixon and Marc Iles are to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt them, Mr Davies is seeking to continue to fleece us after he has sold the club.
The following is copied from the Lion of Vienna website:-
So reports today are that as part of any takeover Eddie Davies wants a cut of future TV and sponsorship money, a suite named after him along with certain bonus payments.
The TV and sponsorship issue was first raised by Alan Nixon (@reluctantnicko) before being confirmed by The Bolton News’ Marc Iles;
It is also Nixon who has broken the fact that Eddie Davies is looking for bonuses, Nixon said; "Bolton. Eddie Davies wants bonuses for achievement AFTER he hands over club. There’s another issue for buyers."
Nixon later says that these bonuses are substantial sums for being in the Championship at any point in the next five years. One can only assume that the other issues are the above TV and sponsorship related ones.
So what does this mean for Bolton Wanderers?
Firstly one could speculate that this will drive buyers away. I’m sure none of them would object to allowing the egotist Davies have a suite named after him, but the other demands are incredible to say the least. If I was looking to buy Bolton then this would be a major stumbling block for me and they would constitute conditions I would not buy a football club with.
The reasons for that can be seen in my next points.
Davies getting a cut of future TV and sponsorship money is for me is highly dangerous. No one will need it pointing out to them that Bolton’s main revenue stream for years now has been TV money. This was certainly the case in the Premier League by a huge margin and is no doubt still the case in the Championship.
I fear that losing a percentage of this each year would seriously hamper our ability to compete in any league where TV money is more important than money which can be made in gate receipts and by other such means. I do not want to contemplate how far down the footballing pyramid that may be.
The sponsorship money is also a huge issue. Though lesser than the TV money it is still a hugely important revenue steam and losing part of that will put Bolton at a competitive disadvantage.
Then there is the bonus for getting to the Championship. This does show how far we have fallen in recent years that such an achievement is seen to merit a bonus at all.
If and when Bolton are able to return to the Championship we will need all the money we can get to stay there. It is an increasingly hard task to stay up with so much money being thrown around. Just look at the fact that two of the three promoted sides from last season are fighting for their lives down the bottom end of the Championship. This includes a Bristol City side who were a cut above the rest in League One.
If Bolton were losing a percentage of their biggest revenue streams and then hit with a bonus payment then any return to the Championship would be short lived and probably a rather painful affair.
This situation leads to a rather painful conclusion.
Administration is the only way in which Bolton’s future can be preserved. If we enter administration Davies loses all power. A deal to sell the club will be dealt with by an administrator who would be very unlikely to attach any silly terms and conditions to it. So as horrible as it may be to say if these reports are true I hope Bolton enter administration so the club can be sold without clauses which will have a serious effect on its future ability to compete.
It will remain to be seen whether anyone will complete the purchase of the football club based on this and what effect such clauses will have. But I seriously worry for the future of the club if a sale is made with those conditions in place.
If the above is true, I want Eddie Davies as far away from our club as soon as possible
|
|
|
Post by thegrud1 on Feb 21, 2016 14:13:19 GMT
I,m sick to death of all this now....Piss off Davies and let someone who cares about MY club take the reins
|
|
|
Takeover
Feb 21, 2016 14:31:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by riochforthereebok on Feb 21, 2016 14:31:21 GMT
Fan my arse, he's turning into a leech and a parasite. If true, I'd definitely take administration and I never thought I'd say that
|
|
|
Post by one2many on Feb 21, 2016 15:50:37 GMT
Just to play devil's advocate.......Players are sold today with sell on clauses of xx%. If the player therefore improves dramatically and can command a superior fee in the future, the original selling club obtains some benefit. The investment risk is with the purchasing club as the player may flop or suffer a career threatening injury. We don't complain too much about this.
ED is "writing off" 180 million debt in order to facilitate a sale. If BWFC in the next five years improves economically (doubt it could get worse!) and starts making a profit.....is it not fair that the original vendor is given a percentage of that profit for selling at the price he did? BWFC as an investment, like the player in the above example, may flop or become bankrupt in the future. The buyer is taking an investment risk.
Another business model is perhaps that of a PLC. PLC's make share dividend payments. Investors take a risk in investing funds in a company and hope to recover their investment and make a profit. ED has invested money in BWFC (probably not 180 million but you take my point). From a purely business perspective, does he not deserve to have the opportunity to get a return on his investment?
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not supporting ED nor his decisions. I am under no illusion that he is a great benefactor who only wants the best for BWFC. However, business wise, i don't see this demand as being such a big deal. The request for a suite sounds like an ego trip, but who honestly cares? In 20 years time our kids/grandchildren will ask " who was Ed Davies?" and the response will be a shrug of the shoulders. Nat Lofthouse on the other hand......
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 21, 2016 16:18:05 GMT
They are no doubt flogging Nat's statue as I write!
|
|
|
Takeover
Feb 21, 2016 16:52:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by riochforthereebok on Feb 21, 2016 16:52:13 GMT
Just to play devil's advocate.......Players are sold today with sell on clauses of xx%. If the player therefore improves dramatically and can command a superior fee in the future, the original selling club obtains some benefit. The investment risk is with the purchasing club as the player may flop or suffer a career threatening injury. We don't complain too much about this. ED is "writing off" 180 million debt in order to facilitate a sale. If BWFC in the next five years improves economically (doubt it could get worse!) and starts making a profit.....is it not fair that the original vendor is given a percentage of that profit for selling at the price he did? BWFC as an investment, like the player in the above example, may flop or become bankrupt in the future. The buyer is taking an investment risk. Another business model is perhaps that of a PLC. PLC's make share dividend payments. Investors take a risk in investing funds in a company and hope to recover their investment and make a profit. ED has invested money in BWFC (probably not 180 million but you take my point). From a purely business perspective, does he not deserve to have the opportunity to get a return on his investment? Please do not misunderstand me, I am not supporting ED nor his decisions. I am under no illusion that he is a great benefactor who only wants the best for BWFC. However, business wise, i don't see this demand as being such a big deal. The request for a suite sounds like an ego trip, but who honestly cares? In 20 years time our kids/grandchildren will ask " who was Ed Davies?" and the response will be a shrug of the shoulders. Nat Lofthouse on the other hand...... Some fair points there One2, not sure though about naming a stand after him, that smacks of egotistical arrogance !!
|
|
|
Takeover
Feb 21, 2016 16:53:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by riochforthereebok on Feb 21, 2016 16:53:28 GMT
On another note, everyone's favourite red top The Sun (not) has Phil Brown installed as next manager!!!
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Feb 21, 2016 19:05:26 GMT
It gets scarier and scarier
The following is about Sports Shield and is published on the Manny Road website:-
"After three months of rumour and numerous 48 hour deadlines, there is at last some movement regarding the future of Bolton Wanderers.
On Friday, current owner Eddie Davies named Sports Shield Investments, the group fronted by former striker Dean Holdsworth as the preferred bidder to buy the club.
Those hoping for a whiter than white backroom team may be disappointed.
Today it emerged that football agent Ken Anderson is one of Sports Shield’s financial backers. In 2006, as an executive at financial advisory firm Vantis PLC, he formulated a plan for businessman Michael Wilde to buy a large shareholding in Southampton Football Club, in order to oust chairman Rupert Lowe.
Anderson, who had been involved in several liquidations, was quickly sidelined, when it emerged that in October 2005 he was disqualifed as a company director until 2013. His transgressions, which were listed at the Insolvency Service, included diverting funds receivable by a company into personal accounts, VAT discrepancies, and failure to cooperate with receivers.
Wilde’s tenure as chairman of Southampton lasted only months (although he returned later), and the clubs’s parent company was placed into administration in 2009, resulting in a ten point deduction and relegation into League One.
Vantis PLC itself went into administration in June 2010 and two of its executives, were jailed in 2012 for offences relating to abuse of Gift Aid tax relief.”
I need to stop trawling the Internet because its getting terrifying
|
|
|
Takeover
Feb 21, 2016 20:46:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by riochforthereebok on Feb 21, 2016 20:46:11 GMT
Makes me wonder whether Holdsworth is just a front for a new company owned by the stealth chairman Ed Davies!!! I'm probably talking out of me arse but the point I'm clearly making is that between ED & DH they together cannot be trusted with our beloved BWFC and it's getting desperately worrying now. Something tells me we're gonna re emerge from all this 5hit as Bolton & Athletic Football Company or words to that effect and the name of Wanderers will be a distant memory. I think a minutes applause would be more apt at the next home game for the shambolic mess Ed Davies as left us in And there was me foolishly getting excited last week that we may have found a saviour Shame on you Davies
|
|
|
Post by whitesince63 on Feb 22, 2016 8:27:23 GMT
Well we should know better tonight which way we're going. Administration doesn't seem to have done Southampton any harm and maybe if we do face that fate a more reliable purchaser with the club genuinely at heart may appear. Let's face it, none of the options currently visible fill you with confidence. I think we're all totally sick of what's going on and the thoroughly disgraceful way in which Davies has handled this. It's pretty clear now he doesn't give a damn about what the fans think so there's no point hoping he ever will. Frankly I'd rather tear the stadium down than name any part of it after him. He saw an opportunity and stole the shares off genuine fans and now he's looking to stuff them again. He's a snake and if going into admin gets him out of the club I'd prefer that than have him still involved in any way.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 22, 2016 11:02:24 GMT
I think we all need to calm down, be patient and wait for the facts to emerge. We cannot be sure of the thought processes involved, so it's premature to begin hate campaigns based on supposition and rumour. Not that we can influence matters in any case.
|
|