Chris Custodiet

Not much we can do about BWFC today except hope and pray. But it might help you to take a trip to Specsavers or similar. I feel sure they'll be able to help you see beyond the end of your nose.

I've no personal vendetta against Iles. I read him alright but I don't trust him because I believe him to be inherently prejudiced and corrosive. At the AGM in May 2018, Iles was presented with information on how much Holdsworth had cost the club when it needed every penny. He acknowledged it but would never report it. Some might wonder if there was an agenda that would not be best served if he reported or inquired into those facts.

Iles has been the full-time reporter on BWFC for ten years and if he can't be bothered to read or can't understand a chairman's report expressed in clear words its not nearly good enough imo. He fouled his pitch and spouted shite but I hadn't noticed him being fed it.

Pretty much my conclusion months ago. I've no inside knowledge whatsoever but I do read the accounts and I did attend the AGM and Eddie's memorial service. But wouldn't you agree that if you relied on the ST, Marc Iles or any journo you'd be as close to clueless as makes no difference?

Just guessing like, but Ken doesn't fancy the idea of him and Patricia living in a tent on Trinity Street and wants KG/EDT to give up the security they might have signed over for the loan.

Spot on there Casino. But if MJ does get it over the line, Iles and his ST friends will be on his and Sharon's back before you can say Unibol..

You can't get away from the fact that someone else is named as one of the borrowers. I suspect she is on the hook and that Eddie would not have lent the money without covering all the possibilities of non-repayment. Would you have? In any event, if EDT get their money back from Ken its going to have to come out of the matrimonial coffers one way or another. How much do you reckon the apartment in Monaco is worth net of any mortgage on it?

This isn't my field of expertise but the redacted person is one of the borrowers but not the owner, or one of the owners, of ICIL 'the chargor'. Those shares are owned by Ken alone so the redaction on the filed charge document makes sense But lets put it this way, if you were lending £5m to a married person on the security of jointly owned matrimonial assets would you be content to have security granted by just one of them? Aside from the requirements of matrimonial property law, couldn't the one you'd lent the money to switch ownership of the assets to their spouse and leave you hanging dry? I don't think Eddie or his lawyers would have left it that open. And remember where you didn't read any of this.

It looks like the redacted name has the same address as Ken which might suggest that Mrs Ken was favourite. I'd have thought that Moonshift wanted more than the (next to worthless) BL shares as security for the loan so there may be another personal charge in favour of Moonshift which might also include the redacted name, if you follow my logic. P.S. Best offer Ken got for the shares was £200K so who'd lend £5m based on that as the only security?

It means you are not exactly right but not too far off. If you think ICIL borrowed money off Eddie, this says he didn't: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09782053/filing-history But as for Ken, that's another matter

I'm not sure I could explain all this again for the 99th time without accusations of being patronising, all too often the last refuge of those with no rational answers.

Just looked up the Twitter page of JME19742. In a banner down the right-hand side it said: You may also like Ian Firth Marc Iles GWB29 Philip Shortland Interesting! A full house of FIBS

Had a few days off to reflect on my previous conduct and comments, Sluffy. Its the sanatogen wine wot does it. A couple of glasses of an evening and I start to get these weird delusions that there might be greater injustices in our society than Ken Anderson's disinclination to flush his life's savings down the crapper. I know Crafty Ken is never going to be as popular as the Cockermouth Kid but when he said he wasn't another Eddie Davies and that Eddie had spent £185m on BWFC, I believed him. And when he said that the club made a small profit in 2017/18 I believed that too, cutting btw the average loss over the last two years to about £2m p.a. And without evidence to the contrary, I'm also inclined to believe that the amount owed to him is closer to the £7.5m he says it is than the £1.6m Rubins included in their statement. One question though is how much of that was borrowed from Eddie and how much from anyone else and what are their representatives going to do if he doesn't come up with the dosh?

What is it that the usual suspects don't understand about this apart from all of it?

Heard it before Hoppy but its still a better joke than 'florets'.

I won't get personal because I don't know you but would it be patronising to ask you how much you know about BWFC finances since the last takeover? Forgive me, but if you have posted anything of interest or value I'm afraid I must have missed it.

Juvenile bullies is about right.

I know what patronising means and I know what perspective means too but WW seems to have more than a handful who only want to hear things which conform to ill-informed prejudice or downright ignorance and simply turn abusive like a gang of juvenile bullies when their prejudices are questioned. If you think its boring, tough. Don't read it.

Thanks for the 'lad' compliment. There are plenty of scoundrels in business but there are also plenty in the public sector as Dr Peter Duffy, Dr Haley Dare, Dr David Drew, Dr Phil Hammond, JamesTitcombe, Sharmila Choudury and many many others have testified. But I don't suppose that any of these names will be familiar to those whose imagination cannot stretch beyond a football match on a Saturday afternoon

There wasn't a hotel 20 years ago and Bassini said he didn't know there was one until he later visited it. But to answer your question, the hotel owes £5.5m to PBP, £1.2m to BWFC, £335K to HMRC and £1m in other creditors. As for 'mismanagement' losses probably aggregate to about £14m in total over Anderson's tenure, most of it in Year 1 and with no parachute payments in any year, compared to average losses of around £10m p.a for Championship clubs.

“Anyone in their right mind isn’t going to take over a club like Bolton in £42m of debt – and when I talked to Bassini last week I said the same thing. Why would you buy it now?” said the ever helpful Simon Jordan in May. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17627121.ken-anderson-bows-out-all-guns-blazing-at-bolton-wanderers/ Fake news? According to Rubins, secured creditors were Fildraw £10m, Anderson £1.6m, Brett Warburton £3m and unsecured creditors £11m. I make that £25.6m in total. About the same as the debt 20 years ago with probably the lowest wages/turnover ratio in the Championship. Can anyone tell me where Talksport, the two Baronnesses, Kieran Maguire or any newspaper in the land has corrected the esteemed Simon Jordan's misstatement of the facts, as reported in the Beeno?

If you think ethics aren't up to much in the business sector, I don't think you'd be too impressed with some of the stuff that goes on in the public sector. But you are absolutely right about the selectivity of who comes under the spotlight.

'merest mention of any criticism of Ken' is it? Wow! I can't claim that I invented the Beeno title but its reporting has been so intellectually juvenile on a consistent basis I thought it quite apt. So I'll continue to use it with or without your kind permission. Barring a miracle there's no way on God's Earth that Ken Anderson would ever have been able to meet the club's liabilities as and when they fell due. The best he could hope for was to try to juggle them until someone with deeper pockets came along. Not an easy task by any means, but he managed to juggle them with considerable skill and ingenuity for over two years. As for signing contracts without the secure means to pay them in the future, that is the nature of football finance and its getting worse by the year. Do you think the directors of BWFC had the means to pay £3.5m for Dean Holdsworth in 1997 and enough money to pay his and everyone else's wages for the rest of his contract? If you did, you are wrong and I rather suspect Eddie hadn't guaranteed another three year's funding when we signed the misfiring Swede, even though he did stump up the cash when required.

If that was all there was to it, it would be outrageous and indefensible. But lets not forget the club was up for sale with one party signing HOTs (which they later backed out of) and another allegedly signing a purchase agreement under which everyone would be paid in full. Its the administrator's job to report on the conduct of directors and I'm sure they will, if they haven't already.

I wonder if Sharron's business plan is the same as Michael's. It doesn't look like Deano's (lets have some cash out pronto) plan was the same as Kenneth's when they took over.