i believe that a deal was all but done, just not signed on the eve of the football season opener against us, hence they were allowed to sign 2 loan players on the morning of the game. Bury/Dale as I understand it, had not shown the EFL at that time proof of being of sufficient funding to complete a season or honouring the terms of the CVA.
So, it would appear Bolton blagged it better than Bury?
I suspect from what I've read that what the EFL would have seen as the essential difference between the two situations was that the Bolton transaction was essentially being held up by the actions of a third party (Ken Anderson) whereas in the Bury case they had no trust in the good faith of one of the parties to any potential transaction (Steve Dale).
If that's right, I think that's a reasonable distinction for them to have drawn.
Also by Andy Holts tweets you can see Burys situation, without good actors around (and they had the opposite) amounted to a ridiculously high ask in the end.
Nobody is going to pay £10m to pay off known cheats , pisstakers and crims to own a company that could then need another £500k to £1m every year going forward.
Comments
Some good news at last.
And we keep those 3 points! ?
Anyone know why they got a longer deadline than Bury?
i believe that a deal was all but done, just not signed on the eve of the football season opener against us, hence they were allowed to sign 2 loan players on the morning of the game. Bury/Dale as I understand it, had not shown the EFL at that time proof of being of sufficient funding to complete a season or honouring the terms of the CVA.
So, it would appear Bolton blagged it better than Bury?
Safety may be around 48 instead of 50, with Bury sadly gone, and we are only 1 point away from bring a quarter of the way there!
I confidently predict we’ll have 46 points by New Year’s Eve but us bring us we’ll get 1 more by mid April
Very Wendoverian @bookertease.
I suspect from what I've read that what the EFL would have seen as the essential difference between the two situations was that the Bolton transaction was essentially being held up by the actions of a third party (Ken Anderson) whereas in the Bury case they had no trust in the good faith of one of the parties to any potential transaction (Steve Dale).
If that's right, I think that's a reasonable distinction for them to have drawn.
Also by Andy Holts tweets you can see Burys situation, without good actors around (and they had the opposite) amounted to a ridiculously high ask in the end.
Nobody is going to pay £10m to pay off known cheats , pisstakers and crims to own a company that could then need another £500k to £1m every year going forward.
That’s the best compliment I’ve ever had on here! (Or anywhere else if I’m honest)
Are you sure it was a compliment @bookertease ?
Well a better grade of insult than I usually get then