Pomlett, Trivela, Bonser & WFC

Has anything changed since Trivela became majority shareholders?

Bonser: gets his rent and a ‘promise’ for the club to buy the freehold
Pomlett, Gamble and Mole: retain well paid roles and continue to be rewarded for years of decline/failure

WFC (& Fans): no significant improvement in quality of playing squad and zero chances of promotion


  1. What did Pomlett pay for his shares from Bonser?
  2. Did Pomlett make a profit selling the initial portion of his shares to Trivela?
  3. Why would Trivela not acquire all of Pomletts shares?
  4. Are Trivela and Pomlett just camouflage for Bonser to continue milking WFC

No one knows and ever will.

Unfortunately with football you cant just flick a switch and everything is rosy, Trivela need more than a few months to turn a club round thats on its knees.

I would say a couple of years would be a good marker as to judge how good the takeover has been.


Thing is people don’t want to wait a couple of years.

1 Like

Oh dear. Conspiracy nonsense. Maybe there are lizards involved. :lizard:


If it’s a conspiracy it’s in plain sight!

1 Like

Three valid points, and one that sounds like you also think Covid wasn’t real , we never put a man on the moon and you probably love Donald Trump.

In all fairness. I’d like to know an answer to 1.2.3

I say fair play if Pom managed a profit. That’s business. Although the fact he sold his shares with us in a poorer state than what he took us over wouldn’t be very ethical

WFC is a business, which we have an emotional investment in - not financial.

So we have no right to know the ins and outs.

Football is a roll of the dice, remember had Plymouth (not D&R) not been docked 10 points in 2013 (?) DS would not have kept us up… who knows where that would’ve led us


It was Plymouth wasn’t it Andrew?

1 Like

Yes, Plymouth were the ones docked points (or else they would have finished above us).

Dagenham’s part in our last day survival was by not bettering our result at Southampton as they were themselves beaten (heavily) at Peterborough.

I had very mixed emotions down at St Mary’s - yes we stayed up, but not by our own devices. It felt a bit hollow if I’m honest.


It was mate, D&R were beat on the last day weren’t they.

1 Like

BTW It felt very similar at Swindon when we won the L2 title - or at least for a while. Brizzle coming from behind to take the lead at Hartlepool was what was keeping us top not our own result - happy but a little niggle that we were relying on others. Then Keatesy scored and we were champions on merit so I could enjoy it properly.


I have views on all the following but I do not actually know. I have serious doubts that the alabama 3 landed in Walsall for the love of football tbh. I hope some pretty hefty legal causes are built into protecting league football in Walsall and at Bescot but I very much doubt that to be the case.

Not sure. My understanding is that the price of the shares was nothing but Bonser was owed money (around £1.4m IIRC). Put simply, I think Pomlett bought the debt off JB. He may of bought that debt for less than it’s worth, i.e a settlement, but we don’t know.

Typically when a business doesn’t make a lot of money, and has a lot of relative debt, it’s worth nothing.

Bonser lost interest and wanted to retire, but needed someone to take over the debt and running of the club.

If my assumption above is correct, then the share of the club sold to Trivela might have been similar - i.e sharing some of or all of the debt. We’ll need to wait for the next set of accounts to see if the structure of the debt that was owed to JB, then LP, has changed.

Again, shares in the club are not really worth anything given the club is not making large amounts of money and has no assets to speak of.


  1. Because none of them are UK based and able to run the club on a day-to-day basis?
  2. Perhaps they haven’t been saddled with any debt and ultimately that still lies with LP. Who knows.
  3. Gives an easier exit route

No, I don’t think so. Whichever way you spin it, Bonser leaving or Bonser staying, the land situation had reached a stalemate because of Bonsers valuation of the land and the stranglehold that situation had over the club. Nothing would change until the club defaulted on rent payments, used the exit clause in the lease or found the money to buy it. No one would want to buy it without a stake in the club, and the club is worth less than nothing to investors. So the first step was to get people interested in the business first, then try and acquire the asset.

My hunch is that Trivela will be providing the finance for the purchase of the land in the form of a direct loan, through which they’ll make interest, as opposed to helping to underwrite a mortgage (for which there is nothing in it for them) which is what some people are assuming. Whether prevailing interest rates will put the kybosh on that, I’m not sure.


What a joke of a thread…

Bonser in Pomcott out

We can only observe that nothing has really changed at WFC despite the name of the majority shareholder changing a a couple of times recently.

The debacle of the Pomlett, Gamble and Mole regime continues supported by the random ownership of non-entity Trivela and perpetual haemorrhaging of cash to Bonser means WFC will continue to decompose in the guts of League 2 and/or get relegated out of the football league.

1 Like

True, but Deano had got us to a position where we could benefit from Plymouth’s deduction. We were rock bottom when he took over, and would have gained nothing from Plymouth’s situation.
Sorry, that was an observation on AndyWTaylor’s post.

1 Like

A few hit the nail ok the head here

Jeff still gets his goose fattened

The people who’ve proceeded with the steady sinking off the ship remain at the helm

But these things to an extent will take time.

Just a shame that good crowds will start to stop
If the results aren’t there

It was 2010/11 season, after Deano had taken over in January. Brilliant achievement, we were adrift when he became manager.

1 Like