Sweaty Ken

[Chris Custodiet]

1 hour ago, ZicoKelly said:

good insight that

I still find it hard to believe DH will have got £402k, in addition to the £50k pay off, in addition to a salary, in addition to the rumoured chunk he kept from the pay day loan

and more so that KA failed to mention at any point how much DH milked the club for when they were airing their dirty laundry, or since when talking about who takes what out the club, given he's not shy in having pops at folk

I'm also skeptical that he's not taken any payments so far (as he alluded to in the recent GMR interview)

but if that's what the he and the books say, fair enough, hope for his sake he finds us a buyer and soon though, otherwise he's going to probably end up with nothing for all his efforts...

I think you'll find that KA was complaining about how much Holdsworth was costing the club but he did keep stum on it later. I expect that would be lawyers intervening.

These accounts indicate that the real beneficiary of the consultancy fee was Holdsworth not Anderson and I expect Ken would have wanted that in the public domain without him breaching any agreement.

Because I'm nosey and don't like leaving loose ends, I'd like to know more about the payments (402K or 472K) and how the 150K paid to Quantuma fits into it all.

I forgot to mention btw that Ken had to find another 250K if he sold shares before 1 September 2018 but I share your hope that Ken is able to hand the club over soon to someone with deep pockets and a willingness to spend to halt the present slide back to League1.

P.S. Here's the note about the 250K paid to Sports Shield BWFC in May 2016. How a company worth less than the price  of a Carr's pastie on a matchday manages to run up costs of 250K escapes me!

Edited November 12, 2018 by Chris Custodiet

[bolton va va]

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I think you'll find that KA was complaining about how much Holdsworth was costing the club but he did keep stum on it later. I expect that would be lawyers intervening.

These accounts indicate that the real beneficiary of the consultancy fee was Holdsworth not Anderson and I expect Ken would have wanted that in the public domain without him breaching any agreement.

Because I'm nosey and don't like leaving loose ends, I'd like to know more about the payments (402K or 472K) and how the 150K paid to Quantuma fits into it all.

I forgot to mention btw that Ken had to find another 250K if he sold shares before 1 September 2018 but I share your hope that Ken is able to hand the club over soon to someone with deep pockets and a willingness to spend to halt the present slide back to League1.

P.S. Here's the note about the 250K paid to Sports Shield BWFC in May 2016. How a company worth less than the price  of a Carr's pastie on a matchday manages to run up costs of 250K escapes me!

What are your thoughts on the suggestion that Holdsworth kept a fair chunk of the £5m Bluemarble loan to cover his  " expenses ".

[Chris Custodiet]

53 minutes ago, bolton va va said:

What are your thoughts on the suggestion that Holdsworth kept a fair chunk of the £5m Bluemarble loan to cover his  " expenses ".

I'd tend to discount that. I suspect that BluMarble only advanced 4million. I believe Sports Shield BWFC was in default of its agreement with BluMarble which is why the 24% interest charge kicked in. Holdsworth wanted  the club to pick that  up but  Ken was having none of it. Ken eventually settled on a deal by which BluMarble would be paid 300K in interest plus their 4million capital but because It wasn't settled on the due date BluMarble claimed 4.8million. It was eventually settled at 4.4million with the help of ED and Michael James.

I feel sure there will be other bits of the jigsaw but that's the way I see it.

[Traf]

Thanks for all this, Chris.

A darned sight more useful than "Ken's a thieving cunt...oh, no he isn't" etc we usually get.

[Sluffy]

3 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I'd tend to discount that. I suspect that BluMarble only advanced 4million. I believe Sports Shield BWFC was in default of its agreement with BluMarble which is why the 24% interest charge kicked in. Holdsworth wanted  the club to pick that  up but  Ken was having none of it. Ken eventually settled on a deal by which BluMarble would be paid 300K in interest plus their 4million capital but because It wasn't settled on the due date BluMarble claimed 4.8million. It was eventually settled at 4.4million with the help of ED and Michael James.

I feel sure there will be other bits of the jigsaw but that's the way I see it.

The BBC reported that BluMarble advanced £5 million to Holdsworth's Sports Shield BWFC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40999756

However according to Mr Anderson the club only received £4 million though BUT secured the full £5 million on the assets of the club.

"Again, for the record, Dean has never put any personal money into the club. He did arrange with Michael Collins, a Sports Shield consultant and an associate of his (now serving a four years and three months prison sentence for mortgage fraud) a £4m loan to the club through his own company Sports Shield repayable in March 2018, but unlike my loans, he secured the loan on behalf of Blu Marble against club assets for £5m plus interest at 24% per annum. Like my funds, this loan has to be repaid but at a cost of several million pounds in interest, arrangement and exit fees!

Dean failed to tell us that the loan he had obtained from BluMarble to Sports Shield on or about the 10th March 2016, was repayable (as I now understand and believe) on the 26th March 2016, only 16 days later, but subsequently changed, I now understand and believe to the 24th April 2016, at an interest rate of 30% per annum. This has also been referred to in the notes to the accounts filed by Deloitte, earlier this week.

Dean also failed to tell us at the time, about a subsequent side letter he/Sports Shield had signed with BluMarble.  As it currently stands, Sports Shield have failed to repay the BluMarble loan and are therefore, technically, as I understand it, in default and the club may be called upon in respect of the guarantees Dean/Sports Shield provided. I am disputing the validity and legality of these guarantees. This has been also referred to in the notes to the accounts, filed by Deloitte".

He also states that Holdsworth had £1.5million out of the club - and this was before SSBWFC was liquidated and he lost his share of the club ownership.

"0nce again, for the record, unlike Dean, who has taken substantial monies (circa £1.5m) out of the club, one way or the other, I have never taken a salary despite working virtually full time and tirelessly on both club and hotel matters".

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2017/february/chairmans-response-to-sports-shield-statement-and-accounts-year-ended-30-june-2015/

 

Something clearly isn't right if the club received £4 million yet had to take on a charge of £5 million to guarantee it?

So on the face of it seems to me Holdsworth has had £1 million of the BluMarble loan which appears to be unaccounted for, secured on the clubs assets which the club never received?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zico]

8 hours ago, ZicoKelly said:

 

and more so that KA failed to mention at any point how much DH milked the club for when they were airing their dirty laundry, or since when talking about who takes what out the club, given he's not shy in having pops at folk

Turns out he did, 1.5m+

 

[Chris Custodiet]

11 hours ago, Sluffy said:

The BBC reported that BluMarble advanced £5 million to Holdsworth's Sports Shield BWFC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40999756

However according to Mr Anderson the club only received £4 million though BUT secured the full £5 million on the assets of the club.

"Again, for the record, Dean has never put any personal money into the club. He did arrange with Michael Collins, a Sports Shield consultant and an associate of his (now serving a four years and three months prison sentence for mortgage fraud) a £4m loan to the club through his own company Sports Shield repayable in March 2018, but unlike my loans, he secured the loan on behalf of Blu Marble against club assets for £5m plus interest at 24% per annum. Like my funds, this loan has to be repaid but at a cost of several million pounds in interest, arrangement and exit fees!

Dean failed to tell us that the loan he had obtained from BluMarble to Sports Shield on or about the 10th March 2016, was repayable (as I now understand and believe) on the 26th March 2016, only 16 days later, but subsequently changed, I now understand and believe to the 24th April 2016, at an interest rate of 30% per annum. This has also been referred to in the notes to the accounts filed by Deloitte, earlier this week.

Dean also failed to tell us at the time, about a subsequent side letter he/Sports Shield had signed with BluMarble.  As it currently stands, Sports Shield have failed to repay the BluMarble loan and are therefore, technically, as I understand it, in default and the club may be called upon in respect of the guarantees Dean/Sports Shield provided. I am disputing the validity and legality of these guarantees. This has been also referred to in the notes to the accounts, filed by Deloitte".

He also states that Holdsworth had £1.5million out of the club - and this was before SSBWFC was liquidated and he lost his share of the club ownership.

"0nce again, for the record, unlike Dean, who has taken substantial monies (circa £1.5m) out of the club, one way or the other, I have never taken a salary despite working virtually full time and tirelessly on both club and hotel matters".

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2017/february/chairmans-response-to-sports-shield-statement-and-accounts-year-ended-30-june-2015/

 

Something clearly isn't right if the club received £4 million yet had to take on a charge of £5 million to guarantee it?

So on the face of it seems to me Holdsworth has had £1 million of the BluMarble loan which appears to be unaccounted for, secured on the clubs assets which the club never received?

 

Quote

Thanks for that Sluffy. Ken usually seems spot on when quoting facts and figures but the position on this still seems to me unclear.

The filed balance sheet of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd should confirm the position, shouldn''t it?

Well it should but it doesn't! It says SSBWFC was a one pound non-trading company which hadn't borrowed any money, hadn't lent any money, hadn't bought any shares, hadn't done anything? Take a look at its Companies House file.

What about Blumarble's filed accounts? If it had lent 5million it should have at least that  amount owing to it on its balance sheet, shouldn't it?

Well it doesn't. It shows that it was owed 3million at 31January 2017 and 4.6million at 31 January 2018.

What do I make of that? Firstly, there are still bits we don't know and secondly that there were bits that Ken didn't know until sometime later. But I still think it more likely that the security of 5million was intended to cover capital and interest, not just the capital

Btw I wouldn't take too much notice of the Beeb or the BN. The BN's Marc Iles was nominated for a journalism award for his useless reporting of the BWFC takeover. It went though to the Guardian's David Conn for summat else. Conn was the guy who claimed that the interest the club couldn't afford to pay added to the capital the club couldn't afford to repay was 'handy'  for Eddie Davies. Cloud cuckoo land doesn't do it justice!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Chris Custodiet

[Sluffy]

5 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Thanks for that Sluffy. Ken usually seems spot on when quoting facts and figures but the position on this still seems to me unclear.

The filed balance sheet of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd should confirm the position, shouldn''t it?

Well it should but it doesn't! It says SSBWFC was a one pound non-trading company which hadn't borrowed any money, hadn't lent any money, hadn't bought any shares, hadn't done anything? Take a look at its Companies House file.

What about Blumarble's filed accounts? If it had lent 5million it should have at least that  amount owing to it on its balance sheet, shouldn't it?

Well it doesn't. It shows that it was owed 3million at 31January 2017 and 4.6million at 31 January 2018.

What do I make of that? Firstly, there are still bits we don't know and secondly that there were bits that Ken didn't know until sometime later. But I still think it more likely that the security of 5million was intended to cover capital and interest, not just the capital

Btw I wouldn't take too much notice of the Beeb or the BN. The BN's Marc Iles was nominated for a journalism award for his useless reporting of the BWFC takeover. It went though to the Guardian's David Conn for summat else. Conn was the guy who claimed that the interest the club couldn't afford to pay added to the capital the club couldn't afford to repay was 'handy'  for Eddie Davies. Cloud cuckoo land doesn't do it justice!

 

Thanks Chris.

To deepen the mystery a little bit more I refer you to something Mr Anderson stated in a recent Chairman's Note of his of the 8th October -

There were reasons for the delay in paying HMRC, which I cannot fully go in to but it was all linked to the dispute with Blu Marble, which has now been settled as widely reported and effectively saved the club several million pounds since the loan was taken out by SportShield BWFC in December 2015, three months before I became involved in March 2016.

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2018/october/a-note-from-the-chairman4/

I'm wondering if the loan was originally taken out by one of Holdsworth's original partners at the time he was negotiating to buy the club from Davies - how else could Holdsworth have had the security for such a loan in the first place as he personally didn't seem to have that sort of money - then on the day of the takeover, it was reassigned to Holdsworth SSBWFC, for him to have access to the club to secure the £5 million (it does make sense to assume that amount was for £4 million capital and 25% more for the interest, thus amounting to the stated £5 million)?  It certainly would explain why Anderson stated above that the loan was to be repaid just 16 days after he and Holdsworth took over the club in March - because it had already been issued two and a half months earlier - and in fact had been a 90 day loan originally?

To add a bit of credence to the loan being taken out in December and not March (and the time of the actual takeover) you may be interested to read this article by Iles dated 19th December, strongly implying an Holdsworth takeover could be done by that Christmas - if so he would have to have been in a position with his finances in place to do so I would suggest.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/14156680.inside-wanderers-its-close-but-no-cigar-yet-for-holdsworth-and-co/

As for the £5 million figure, if I recall correctly the transfer of ownership from Davies for a nominal £1 was based on an agreement that the new owners would bring £7.5 million to invest in the club, a sum of £5 million by Holdsworth's Sports Shield, to meet all the then current financial needs (such as paying off HMRC's winding up petition), plus a further investment of £2.5 million from Inner Circle 'if required'.

If my memory serves me correctly Anderson took issue that Holdsworth had immediately renegaded on his part of the bargain by only putting £4 million and not £5 million into the club - to which Holdsworth had claimed he had brought £5 million to the table but £1 million of it had been used up in arrangement fees.

If the loan had been in existence for two and a half months before Anderson arrived on the scene (and had been secured against assets other than the clubs at the time) it is no wonder that Anderson's advisors had no knowledge of the loan when they took out due diligence prior to the day of the takeover (being the very day Holdsworth secured the loan against £5 million of the clubs assets!).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35630605

If this was indeed the case you can see why Anderson clearly had no trust in Holdsworth and would not put his own money into the club until Holdsworth had put in the 'missing' million which he had committed to do but which Holdsworth had claimed had already been spent setting up the takeover in the first place.

It seems to me Holdsworth was unable to meet his side of the deal by putting in £5 million FOLLOWING the takeover and Anderson had felt he'd been played and taken for a mug and therefore would no invest until the matter was fully resolved and trust restored - of which it could never be and why one of them had to go.

That's my best guess of what happened anyway.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Sluffy
Correcting typos

[Steejay]

18 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Thanks Chris.

To deepen the mystery a little bit more I refer you to something Mr Anderson stated in a recent Chairman's Note of his of the 8th October -

There were reasons for the delay in paying HMRC, which I cannot fully go in to but it was all linked to the dispute with Blu Marble, which has now been settled as widely reported and effectively saved the club several million pounds since the loan was taken out by SportShield BWFC in December 2015, three months before I became involved in March 2016.

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2018/october/a-note-from-the-chairman4/

I'm wondering if the loan was originally taken out by one of Holdsworth's original partners at the time he was negotiating to by the club from Davies - how else could Holdsworth have had the security for such a loan in the first place as he personally didn't seem to have that sort of money - then on the day of the takeover, it was reassigned to Holdsworth SSBWFC, for him to have access to the club to secure the £5 million (it does make sense to assume that amount was for £4 million capital and 25% more for the interest, thus amounting to the stated £5 million)?  It certainly would explain why Anderson stated above that the loan was to be repaid just 16 days after he and Holdsworth took over the club in March - because it had already been issued two and a half months earlier - and in fact had been a 90 day loan originally?

To add a bit of credence to the loan being taken out in December and not March (and the time of the actual takeover) you may be interested to read this article by Iles dated 19th December, strongly implying an Holdsworth takeover could be done by that Christmas - if so he would have to have been in a position with his finances in place to do so I would suggest.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/14156680.inside-wanderers-its-close-but-no-cigar-yet-for-holdsworth-and-co/

As for the £5 million figure, if I recall correctly the transfer of ownership from Davies for a nominal £1 was based on an agreement that the new owners would bring £7.5 million to invest in the club, a sum of £5 million by Holdsworth's Sports Shield, to meet the then all current financial needs (such as paying off HMRC's winding up petition), plus a further investment of £2.5 million from Inner Circle 'if required'.

If my memory serves me correctly Anderson took issue that Holdsworth had immediately renegaded on his part of the bargain by only putting £4 million and not £5 million into the club - to which Holdsworth had claimed he had brought £5 million to the table but £1 million of it had been used up in arrangement fees.

If the loan had been in existence for two and a half months before Anderson arrived on the scene (and had been secured against assets other than the clubs at the time) it is no wonder that Anderson's advisors had no knowledge of the loan when they took out due diligence prior to the day of the takeover (being the very day Holdsworth secured the loan against £5 million of the clubs assets!).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35630605

If this was indeed the case you can see why Anderson clearly had no trust in Holdsworth and would not put his own money into the club until Holdsworth had put in the 'missing' million which he had committed to do but which Holdsworth had claimed had already been spent setting up the takeover in the first place.

It seems to me Holdsworth was unable to meet his side of the deal by putting in £5 million FOLLOWING the takeover and Anderson had felt he'd been played and taken for a mug and therefore would no invest until the matter was fully resolved and trust restored - of which it could never be and why one of them had to go.

That's my best guess of what happened anyway.

 

 

Fuck me, my brain hurts after trying to read these last two posts

[Casino]

its obviously beyond the wit of iles to try to make sense of it all

i appreciate somebody trying to work it out for us simpletons

[Chris Custodiet]

35 minutes ago, Steejay said:

Fuck me, my brain hurts after trying to read these last two posts

OK, take away the detail and you're left with Ken's done all the work, shouldered all the responsibility and taken all the criticism but, so far, only Holdsworth and his legal team have profited from it.

Just an opinion, of course.

[Take Hunt Off]

2 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

OK, take away the detail and you're left with Ken's done all the work, shouldered all the responsibility and taken all the criticism but, so far, only Holdsworth and his legal team have profited from it.

Just an opinion, of course.

A pretty well researched opinion I 'd say 

Well done Chunky.

[jayjayoghani]

So I can now start stabbing my home made Holdsworth voodoo doll. Thanks for the clarification. 

[Zico]

12 minutes ago, jayjayoghani said:

So I can now start stabbing my home made Holdsworth voodoo doll. Thanks for the clarification. 

Has it been in the box since Villa?

[Traf]

1 hour ago, jayjayoghani said:

So I can now start stabbing my home made Holdsworth voodoo doll. Thanks for the clarification. 

Some of us never stopped.

[Chris Custodiet]

20 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Thanks Chris.

To deepen the mystery a little bit more I refer you to something Mr Anderson stated in a recent Chairman's Note of his of the 8th October -

There were reasons for the delay in paying HMRC, which I cannot fully go in to but it was all linked to the dispute with Blu Marble, which has now been settled as widely reported and effectively saved the club several million pounds since the loan was taken out by SportShield BWFC in December 2015, three months before I became involved in March 2016.

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2018/october/a-note-from-the-chairman4/

I'm wondering if the loan was originally taken out by one of Holdsworth's original partners at the time he was negotiating to buy the club from Davies - how else could Holdsworth have had the security for such a loan in the first place as he personally didn't seem to have that sort of money - then on the day of the takeover, it was reassigned to Holdsworth SSBWFC, for him to have access to the club to secure the £5 million (it does make sense to assume that amount was for £4 million capital and 25% more for the interest, thus amounting to the stated £5 million)?  It certainly would explain why Anderson stated above that the loan was to be repaid just 16 days after he and Holdsworth took over the club in March - because it had already been issued two and a half months earlier - and in fact had been a 90 day loan originally?

To add a bit of credence to the loan being taken out in December and not March (and the time of the actual takeover) you may be interested to read this article by Iles dated 19th December, strongly implying an Holdsworth takeover could be done by that Christmas - if so he would have to have been in a position with his finances in place to do so I would suggest.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/14156680.inside-wanderers-its-close-but-no-cigar-yet-for-holdsworth-and-co/

As for the £5 million figure, if I recall correctly the transfer of ownership from Davies for a nominal £1 was based on an agreement that the new owners would bring £7.5 million to invest in the club, a sum of £5 million by Holdsworth's Sports Shield, to meet all the then current financial needs (such as paying off HMRC's winding up petition), plus a further investment of £2.5 million from Inner Circle 'if required'.

If my memory serves me correctly Anderson took issue that Holdsworth had immediately renegaded on his part of the bargain by only putting £4 million and not £5 million into the club - to which Holdsworth had claimed he had brought £5 million to the table but £1 million of it had been used up in arrangement fees.

If the loan had been in existence for two and a half months before Anderson arrived on the scene (and had been secured against assets other than the clubs at the time) it is no wonder that Anderson's advisors had no knowledge of the loan when they took out due diligence prior to the day of the takeover (being the very day Holdsworth secured the loan against £5 million of the clubs assets!).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35630605

If this was indeed the case you can see why Anderson clearly had no trust in Holdsworth and would not put his own money into the club until Holdsworth had put in the 'missing' million which he had committed to do but which Holdsworth had claimed had already been spent setting up the takeover in the first place.

It seems to me Holdsworth was unable to meet his side of the deal by putting in £5 million FOLLOWING the takeover and Anderson had felt he'd been played and taken for a mug and therefore would no invest until the matter was fully resolved and trust restored - of which it could never be and why one of them had to go.

That's my best guess of what happened anyway.

 

 

Forgive me for not responding more quickly. I agree with most of this but although the loan will have  been approved weeks earlier (probably at the instigation of other parties) its unlikely to have been advanced until the security was handed over. i.e. at the time of the takeover.

Ken, of course, claimed that the security charge was invalid because the paperwork wasn't in order and Blumarble are rumoured to be asking questions of their legal advisers. I don't think for one moment though that Dean Holdsworth was smart enough to make a mug of Ken Anderson but he did seem to have a pretty useful legal team. 

Ken's commitment was only 50p plus whatever was in the shareholders agreement so I cannot see Ken spending a lot of money on due diligence and there was probably not much time in any case. I think it more likely that Ken anticipated some 'surprises' and that he'd sort them out later or look for the escape hatch if he couldn't.

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Chris Custodiet

[burnden]

All quiet on the Chairman's notes front this week...

[mickbrown]

2 minutes ago, burnden said:

All quiet on the Chairman's notes front this week...

He’s spellchecking the ex Fulham manager’s name

[DazBob]

He's too busy turning away queues of billionaire investors whilst counting all the money he's stolen out of the club, obvs.

Edited November 14, 2018 by DazBob

[bwfcfan5]

21 minutes ago, burnden said:

All quiet on the Chairman's notes front this week...

What can he say?

[bolton va va]

32 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

What can he say?

Aye, if he gave Parky another vote of confidence it would be interpreted as a "kiss of death ", & if he was sounding out another manager, he wouldn't be broadcasting it.

[Sluffy]

3 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Forgive me for not responding more quickly. I agree with most of this but although the loan will have  been approved weeks earlier (probably at the instigation of other parties) its unlikely to have been advanced until the security was handed over. i.e. at the time of the takeover.

Ken, of course, claimed that the security charge was invalid because the paperwork wasn't in order and Blumarble are rumoured to be asking questions of their legal advisers. I don't think for one moment though that Dean Holdsworth was smart enough to make a mug of Ken Anderson but he did seem to have a pretty useful legal team. 

Ken's commitment was only 50p plus whatever was in the shareholders agreement so I cannot see Ken spending a lot of money on due diligence and there was probably not much time in any case. I think it more likely that Ken anticipated some 'surprises' and that he'd sort them out later or look for the escape hatch if he couldn't.

 

I'm more than happy to wait for a reply from you Chris as they are always very informative.

I've no doubt your reasoning above is a great nearer the mark than my speculation and best guessing contained in my posts on these matters.

It's great to see you posting on forums again as your depth of knowledge, understanding, interpretation and explanation of the probable financial goings on at the club is of benefit to all of us that read them and are not hidden away like they have been amongst the bilge, trolling and nut jobs over on the Bolton News comments section were I suspect the vast majority of us steer well clear of.

 

 

[Traf]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

What can he say?

Christmas Jumpers

Away kits

Half season tickets

Marc Iles is a cunt

Be loud & be proud.

[Zico]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

What can he say?

he could express his disappointment that no one took up the ST offer for the Swansea game

then try and whip up support for the 4 full price games in December

[tomski]

4 hours ago, Traf said:

Christmas Jumpers

Away kits

Half season tickets

Marc Iles is a cunt

Be loud & be proud.

Copied and pasted last weeks bollocks