Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sluffy last won the day on December 15 2018

Sluffy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

155 Top of the class

1 Follower

About Sluffy

  • Rank
    Sub's Bench

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

666 profile views
  1. Sluffy

    Taken over

    I would speculate that this is one of the areas that is a bone of contention between the two sets of Administrators (and maybe even impacts on James/PBP secured creditors claim?) It seems that £4m of the £5.5m James secured on the hotel was quickly 'loaned' by the hotel to the club and not repaid. However the list of creditors given by the clubs Administrator does not show this loan on his list? This possibly explains why the list states PBP as a secured creditor for an 'uncertain' amount of money? Why would the Administrator refer to PBP rather than the hotel, well possibly if the belief at the time was that there was insufficient funds to satisfy James/PBP's charge and that they were going to crystallise their debt by taking the hotel as full payment for it? However the hotel Administrator may take the view that £4m of the loan was always intended to go into the clubs pocket and so the real loan from James into the hotel was actually just £1.5m, leaving Anderson to mop up the rest (circa £3m) of whatever the hotel eventually sells for as the next secured creditor - in which case he would also become the majority creditor in terms of debt outstanding? It's clear anyway that the fly in the ointment regarding FV signing on the dotted line is something to do with the hotel. It can't be as Nixon and others believe, to be the hotel significantly funding the running costs of the club in future, it doesn't make that sort of profit to do so. Neither would franchising it. It can't be anything to do with parking for its customers, sufficient parking will always be provided by some means, so it must boil down to money - namely the PBP/James secured £5.5m I would suggest. So I guess it is either the need for the money up front to help complete the purchase or the question as to what is the actual amount agreed by both Administrators that James/PBP are secured for - and against who, the club, the hotel, or a bit of both? If it is the former then maybe that explains the request to the PFA to help out by paying the players wages (that must add up to over £2m by now I guess) and refunded when the hotel money comes through. However I don't see what the PFA can secure their loan against?
  2. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Statement from the Hotel Administrator - “While there is a close relationship between the football club and the Bolton Whites Hotel, they are two separate legal entities, which has given rise to them having their own individual secured and unsecured creditors. “In addition, there is a substantial inter-company debt due to the hotel from the football club. It is for these reasons that separate administrators were appointed over the business and assets of the hotel and football club; to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to protect the interest of the separate stakeholders. “As the joint administrators of Bolton Whites Hotel Limited, our statutory duty is to act in the best interests of all of the creditors of the Hotel. We are also duty bound to remain impartial. “At the time of our appointment, the hotel was closed. The joint administrators’ determined that re-opening the hotel would benefit all creditors. Therefore, the joint administrators focus has been on returning it to operational viability. “This has involved significant challenges including securing key supplies, allaying customer concerns, ensuring the hotel is re-listed on booking websites and ensuring any health and safety issues have been resolved. “We have also implemented a programme of limited emergency capital expenditure to ensure the ongoing trading of the business. “We could not have achieved all of this without the ongoing commitment of all of the staff of the hotel, and are pleased that we have been able to pay wages and salaries of the staff including their arrears at the date of our appointment. “We have commenced a marketing and sales process of the hotel and have appointed agents to manage the process, which has received significant interest from potential purchasers. We expect the process to run for four to six weeks and do not propose to comment on progress during this time, as discussions will be confidential. “While we note press comment regarding the sale of the football club, until recently we had had only limited interaction with the football club administrators and no contact with potential purchasers of the club. “The joint administrators are sympathetic to the football club’s need to complete an urgent sale before the start of the new season and cognisant of the emotional impact the current situation is having on the fan base and local community. However, the joint administrators obligations remain to fulfil their statutory duties.”
  3. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Manners maketh man. Have a nice day.
  4. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Thanks Chris, much appreciated once again. Please don't let the usual suspects chase you off here, there's plenty like me who do want to hear your knowledge and advise in order to enlighten us, and we thank you for it.
  5. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Thank you and a very warm welcome back from me, I've missed your expertise and advice whilst you've been away. I did indeed take the 'beeno' at face value for the date of the appointment for the Administrator but seeing that what I understand to be his requirement to report after 8 weeks and that period had already been spent significantly already I don't think the issue is major on its own but does again reinforce the need to check whatever Iles states as to how accurate or informed he actually is. Similarly I fully accept the secured creditor of the hotel is PBP and have referred to them as such many times on this thread as such but for the benefit of making what I'm trying to explain to others that bit more easier to comprehend I've use MJ's name rather than PBP. You are right though to make clear that MJ may very well not be the sole decision maker as to what actions are done to secure and recover the £5.5m investment and how it may be used once it has. The interest costs for 2017 are indeed up on the previous year £390k compared to £188k. As the PBP loan is shown as having an interest charge of 7% pa attached to it and 7% of £5.5m is £385k, I assumed that for 2016 the loan had only started mid year and hence did not attract a full years interest to it. However I think your lead is more to do with if the hotel made a loss of £500k and £385k was interest on a loan, then the hotel was probably trading at a £100k loss without having such a short term loan to service set against it - and possibly why there maybe some genuine interest for the hotel if the purchase price was lower enough and it was serviced over a much longer period. Even then breaking even at 83% occupancy, doesn't leave a great margin to make substantial profits unless industry occupancy rates for a similar hotel in a similar location is say over 90% occupancy rates - which seem high to someone like me who is not knowledgeable about such things. Whilst I'm on about the interest of the PBP loan, assuming the interest hasn't been serviced in full since the last accounts, would that mean PBP would have that as an unsecured debt as well as the secured one they already had or would the interest be set against the secured debt and thus inflating the overall total accordingly? As for other creditors, Trade and the Taxman seemed to account for around a further £800k, which knowing no better I would assume to be normal running costs for a hotel of its market section and location? Chris, from what you can gleam from the published accounts, would you consider that PBP have the head charge on the hotel, as Mr Iles has tweeted to inform others that they hadn't and it was Mr Anderson that did? Many thanks.
  6. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Possibly but that's an issue for FV and not the clubs Administrator whose working on the best interest of the creditors. This is how the Administrators view that - Wanderers initially had around £1m in the bank account when they were frozen on March 15 and, states the report, there was a “real threat of the company being placed into compulsory liquidation” on the administrators’ arrival around eight weeks ago. After it was decided the business could not be rescued as a going concern without a major injection of funds, work began on marketing, and the creation of a ‘data room’ to allow interested parties to do due diligence. It has been revealed that only one party paid the £25,000 fee but that five initial offers were received. Best and final offers were then requested by 4pm on June 12. Football Ventures, a consortium comprised of London-based businesspeople Sharon Brittan and Jeff Thomas and Michael James, who is a secured creditor of the adjoining Bolton Whites Hotel, were named as preferred bidders and had to pay a non-refundable deposit of £1million for the purposes of “meeting future critical payments necessary for preparing the club for the forthcoming season”. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17762162.counting-cost-administrators-lay-wanderers-complex-finances-bare/ To translate he basically is saying without someone to take the club on in the form of a new company (newco) the club is basically already dead and to prevent it from him closing it down now already (because it IS insolvent) he needed £1m from the prospective newco owners (FV) to continue trading for the time being. If FV pull out then there is simply nothing to keep the club going - which means liquidation - the Administrator cannot run the club whilst insolvent (that's why I mentioned the fact that payment of wages to the youth players in order to play at York was a very good sign that such thinking isn't imminent). There is therefore no capacity to sit around and wait for someone to rock up with a supposedly better deal and for them to prove their financial validity/capacity and for them to be granted approval from the EFL. This would in any event have to be completed and signed off before the start of the season as the EFL won't let the club to start the season without a financial guarantee that it could complete it and there would only be EDT in a position to do that and they've certainly given no intention of desiring that otherwise they would have taken on the club themselves already. It's FV or liquidation. If there really is someone wanting the club other than FV, then they simply have to work with them to keep the club going - by funding it whilst it is insolvent until it can be sold to a newco, and that can only be done now via FV. Similarly and running alongside concurrently the hotel Administrator is working in the best interests of their creditors, a list of who should be revealed anytime now as the 8 weeks from entering Administration is up and today would mark the two calendar months mark of the same. If you flip the scenario over, would it be in the best interests of the creditors of the hotel to see the football club being liquidated if the FV purchase fails? FV is the only option of retaining a club in the EFL, if they fail, then who would want a near 30,000 seater football stadium in Horwich? If FV pulled out the clubs secured creditors would still get paid from liquidation but it would seem there wouldn't be anything left for the unsecured ones - no 35p in the £ even. The hotel's secured creditors would get paid depending on how much the Administrator gets and the hierarchy of those creditors (I still believe James to be first in line). I find it hard to believe their is some sort of a bidding war however for the hotel as Nixon is making out. I would suggest that the most likely cause of the delay is the awaiting of the hotel Administrators list of creditors - if as suspected James is top dog and Anderson is not shown as a secured creditor (or a minor one if he is) then FV will have every reason to go ahead with the purchase of the club, if however he is not and Anderson is somehow the head creditor, then FV would need to re-evaluate their position as to whether to continue buying the club, as presumably James would have lost his £5.5m loan - which I assume would have been a cornerstone of the FV purchase. Therefore it makes eminent sense for FV to hold back from buying the club until the extent of who the secured creditors of the hotel. their ranking status - and for how much - officially are.
  7. Sluffy

    Taken over

    No. The Administrator set out in his report that the club was all but insolvent and he would be required to liquidate it without a quick sale. He reported that only one bid was received in the required time and that was FV. FV also put in a £1m non returnable investment to the Administrator to keep the club solvent. There isn't any monies left to continue the Administration unless EDT cares to fund it (they being the ones who put the club into Administration. Don't forget the players are not being paid by the Administrator due to the club not having the liquidity to do so. It was reported that the Administrator released some money to pay the youths to play against York - I doubt they would even have done that if the FV looked like collapsing - and why indeed should it, they apparently have deposited their funds in escrow, so we know they are serious about buying the club. Seems to me to be totally bollocks that Nixon is implying the club needs the income from the hotel - the hotel is running at near capacity (85% of rooms full in the last accounts) yet still made a £400k loss, it made a £100k loss the year before at similar room capacity, under Davies/Gartside, just to show the trend. I can't see how owning the hotel is integral to FV's strategy of future funding of the club? Maybe the hotel may have some contractual control over some of the car parks and potentially stop them being developed - that would be an issue - but owning the hotel to fund the club is laughable as it stands - we would have to sell players in future to simply pay off the hotels yearly debts, if that was the case on current trends. If there is someone wanting to buy the hotel and/or club for more then there's nothing stopping FV completing purchase of the club, then merely selling it on to this mysterious wealthy bidder in the background once they've bought the hotel. Seems to me it's just the hotel Administrator trying to get the most they can out of FV's interest in the hotel - in just the same way the club Administrator allowed the likes of Nixon to tweet how much other interest there was in buying BWFC, when at the end of the day only FV actually put a bid in for it. The hotel was put into Administration on Wednesday 15th May, so the Administrator should have made his required reports eight weeks later, which I make to be Wed/Thur 10/11th July. I suspect any delay or disagreement with his report is more likely to be the stumbling block at the moment delaying things for the last few days, than anything else.
  8. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Not sure why there seems to be so much panic? - The Hotel as someone has posted above lost around half a million over the last two published accounts 30 June 2016, and 30 June 2017, so is very unlikely to be part of the key financial plan of FV's strategy for funding the club over the next two years (if at all?). - The plan seems to be as based on Benny's post of a few weeks back, is to build a multi story car park on one of the car parks and develop the remaining car parks presumably for retail development. The ownership of the car parks is nothing to do with the hotel, and as such who ever owns the hotel will not prevent such a plan from taking place. - Maybe part of the plan was to leverage the hotel (take out a loan and use the hotel as security) but even if that wasn't to work out, I've no doubt a developer would fund and shortfall if required - at a cost of course. - As far as I'm concerned James is the senior creditor on the hotel and this should be confirmed by the Administrator for the hotel publishing his list of secured and unsecured creditors this week (probably why Nixon is saying things are happening this week - the Administrator has to report within 8 weeks of Administration commencing). - Benny believed the hotel Administrators had put a value of £4.5m to £5m on the hotel, so somebody needs to bid over market value and in excess of the £5.5m security James has in it, otherwise he could simply crystallise his charge and take the hotel as full payment for his debt. - There's no reason at all why the club and hotel couldn't function separately to each other - in fact when the hotel was first opened the club only held a half share of it. They are simply not dependent on each other. People book to stay at the hotel because of its location and not because of about 30 home matches during the calendar year. - The clubs Administrator has stated his opinion of Bassini and even if Bassini bought the hotel I can't see how that would change things as to how the club Administrator has acted or FV ultimately completing purchase of the club. - I don't understand Nixon's/others on going commentary of Eddie Davies Trustees seemingly wanting more from FV to meet what they want (and FV looking to bring in new investors) because things simply don't work that way - the Administrator is the one that's sets the process and conditions, implements the timescales and determines what the best offer is thereafter, no one else. If EDT is unhappy and FV are the highest bidder in accordance with the Administration process, then the only alternative left is that they take liquidation instead, and nothing at all to do with seeing who the hotel is eventually sold to and if they then want to buy the club. - If the hotel's market value is really £5m or less then who in the right minds will pay several million more for an hotel with room capacity at around 85% (as per the accounts) and losing £400k pa? Doesn't make much economic sense does it? - Finally Heathcote staff were TUPE-ed over to the Administrators company when they terminated his contract. That's how I view things anyway.
  9. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Well what a surprise you popping up again to something I've posted. You seem to be obsessed with everything I say. The fact is whether you like it or not PBP's charge is still outstanding and it is set specifically against the hotel as the accounts clearly shows. Those are facts and not me making things up as you seem to be suggesting. I would suggest that Ken fully knew that when he filled his charge because it was an umbrella charge on everything - the club, Burnden Leisure, Bolton Sporting Ventures, and Bolton Sports Villages as well as the hotel - seems a somewhat desperate act considering there doesn't seem to be anything much of worth in both the Sporting Ventures having just £90k in it and the Sports Village just £35k - both of which incidentally have not been put into Administration and both having submitted their accounts in the last few months. Seems to me he's taking a punt on putting a charge on everything as he probably suspects the £5m will be far from covered from asset value under Administration. Fwiw I used to be a company secretary in a past life (no not one of those that types the letters) so I do have vague understanding of how a company works. If what I post annoys you so much then put me on ignore, it will save you getting stressed with me all the time. Other than that, have a nice day.
  10. Sluffy

    Taken over

    I'm fairly confident that I am correct and it certainly wouldn't be the first time Iles has been completely misinformed about financial matters. I draw your attention to two things namely PBP's charge was registered in January 2016 specifically in relation to the hotel and in the PDF of the link I post below clearly shows under para 3.1.1 (Security) that he has 'full title...by way of first legal mortgage to the property. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03674979/charges/I38DzXLRGn7DrnH_m96r8kkHQiA Anderson's charge was registered in September 2018 is registered against all the companies in regards to Burnden Leisure and those coming under its umbrella - and doesn't include such a specific reference to a 'full title' - because PBP already have secured it previously. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03674979/charges/WV3Q_QOTRrQOk2d8EelQQQkvqWk The second matter being that if you look at the bottom of page 28 of the most recent accounts published by the hotel (June 2017) you will clearly see the PBP loan clearly stated as an outstanding creditor. See PDF from this link (scroll down to 28 March 2018 / Full accounts. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03674979/filing-history Unless Anderson has since that time renegotiated PBP giving up their first charge on the hotel - and why should they have? - then I suggest Iles is incorrect on what he said.
  11. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Where has Iles said that because he is clearly wrong? Prescot Business Park (Michaël James) is the Primary Charge holder on the Hotel with an amount of £5.5m. Anderson has a second charge on it from the £5m he put in to pay off the BM loan. From what Benny has said previously, the Administrator believes the Hotel to be worth in the region of £4.5m to £5m. If no buyers can be found to pay more than the £5.5m that James has a charge on it, then Anderson would lose his secured creditor charge on the Hotel. In fact as I understand it James could simply accept the hotel from the Administrator as full and final settlement that being the case. Anderson looks to be facing a significant/total loss on the £5m he's put into the club that he's secured on the hotel, which presumably is the quibble he's had arguing the toss that it was all secured on the clubs assets instead. Even then EDT and Warburton have the Primary charges on the club (and land in respect of Warburton) so probably why the clubs Administrator only accepts £1.6m as secured creditor status and not the additional £5m other (or whatever he was) that he was claiming. It's hard to understand what the scheme is with Sullivan/Bassini - presumably the £27m was to buy the club and his other so called £6/7m to buy the Hotel? Presumably in order to develop the land in a similar way as one assumes FV plan is also? That being so and with the Administrator not accepting Bassini's submission, then I can only think the intent is to attempt to buy the hotel as some sort of bargaining chip/ransom strip to force a deal with FV. Can't see them wanting to buy a currently loss making hotel at more than market value and sit on it, if FV are prepared to simply sit them out and watch them lose money daily on the hotel. However if FV can't wait, then maybe there is a deal to be done to pay them to go away perhaps? I suspect most of the delaying tactics over the last few months are more to do with KA attempting not to lose the £5m of his secured assets (that in reality the actual value of the various assets don't seem to be able to support with others having previous claims and are before him in the queue to be paid) rather than the populist social media view that Ken is trying to shaft us for one last pay day for himself. That's how I reason things anyway.
  12. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Yes. That's what I wrote in my post above.
  13. Sluffy

    Taken over

    Yes I've said it already in my post above but accept not many bother to read them fully, if it all.
  14. Sluffy

    Taken over

    I'm a lover not a fighter - I believe Traf is too. Hope to God I never get in a disagreement with him then, could be embarrassing for the both of us if we had to resolve it! Anyway the Twitter bloke is apparently an insolvency expert, so who am I to disagree with him however my understanding was that an Administrator submits his report, which he has within the prescribed eight weeks, then calls all the creditors for a meeting within a further two weeks to agree the way forward. It was my understanding that at this point if a majority of creditors (based on value of debt) rejected his proposal then the issue has to return to the winders court for it to decide what will happen. I am guessing that the Administrator already knows a majority will vote for his plan (35p in the £, not pay Ken that £5m, etc) and that it allows him to move ahead before the vote? Maybe this is the same thinking of the twitter 'expert'. Maybe I'm just wrong but that's how I understood the process to be.
  15. Sluffy

    Taken over

    I know. That's exactly what I said. I'm not understanding why you are telling me something I have just told you/everyone else?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.