Iles reporting PFA pulled out of funding wages

[Casino]

I'm not sure they are interviews as such

Aren't they more press conferences

 

I think it's a good point to be honest

Relations with Anderson Would be much better if they had sat down informally, Ken with a nice piece of meat and a nice bottle, Lies with spaghetti hoops and lemonade, and just talked for a bit

Lies then writes a story about the new owner

 

Instead, thumbhead chose his side, was fed plenty shit, winders et al,  and burned his bridges

And it's come to this

 

And I still think banning him is a bad idea

[MickyD]

I've no doubt that somewhere amongst the lurkers on here will be a certain BN journo called Mark Iles.

 

Well get this Mr Iles, you aren't speaking for me! You may well be the preferred journalist of the Supporters' Trust but they're yet another group who claim to be speaking for the fans. Well they aren't speaking for me either.

[HomerJay]

now i am on kens side on this (as much as one can be considering the circumstances anyway) but tough decision for him today. turn up and take a load of abuse from simpletons, or stay away and stoke the fire further perhaps...

if i was him, im not sure id want to be at the match today...

[Casino]

I'm sure leatherchops isn't going to be swayed by folks perceptions

[bolton va va]

13 minutes ago, HomerJay said:

now i am on kens side on this (as much as one can be considering the circumstances anyway) but tough decision for him today. turn up and take a load of abuse from simpletons, or stay away and stoke the fire further perhaps...

if i was him, im not sure id want to be at the match today...

Most of the simpletons don't go to games - none of those on the BN comments seem to go - but as we've seen before, it only takes a handful of loudmouths waving a couple of bedsheets to get more publicity than their numbers merit, & under the present circumstances, the BN will give them plenty of coverage.

[Walkden White]

Just catching up on all this and whatever you think about Iles reporting, banning him is a bad idea and serves no useful purpose..

Just when we've finally got the pay issue sorted and we could hopefully get back to talking about football, these 2 clowns continue to have a go at each other and PP is fielding questions about a local reporter being banned.

I know it's pantomine season but you really couldn't make it up 

[Eavesy]

37 minutes ago, HomerJay said:

now i am on kens side on this (as much as one can be considering the circumstances anyway) but tough decision for him today. turn up and take a load of abuse from simpletons, or stay away and stoke the fire further perhaps...

if i was him, im not sure id want to be at the match today...

It’s incredible people are having a dig at ken for none attendance at matches.

There’s only Ruth and that doombar fella who have attended more than him over the last few years.

And he’s not commuting from farnworth.

[Zico]

10 hours ago, Sluffy said:

 

Maybe if he hadn't deliberately put out on twitter extracts from the accounts about payments to Anderson company for 'consultation' services and joined in the unfounded belief that he was paying himself over half a million in year in wages, then all his twitter followers wouldn't have taken it as gospel that Anderson (and his son) were!

 

He is, though

He took 525k as a fee

Then it looks like he used it to buy the club 

He can spend his wages on what he wants

But that is what it looks like he did, he paid himself then he bought the club for himself

Do you think he'd have bought the club outright without the fee?

I'm not saying he's done anything untoward, but it looks like he paid himself so he could buy all the shares

Do you think there is a more plausible scenario?

[Sluffy]

48 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

He is, though

He took 525k as a fee

Then it looks like he used it to buy the club 

He can spend his wages on what he wants

But that is what it looks like he did, he paid himself then he bought the club for himself

Do you think he'd have bought the club outright without the fee?

I'm not saying he's done anything untoward, but it looks like he paid himself so he could buy all the shares

Do you think there is a more plausible scenario?

My point is there is a massive difference between a 'one-off' payment to him for a specific purpose than Iles implying (and probably believing himself) that he is taking over half a million EACH and every year for himself and whilst letting his company (Burnden Leisure) struggle to pay wages.

For a start no one knows what the payment for 'consultancy' was for other than those involved with the transaction - it may have been used for KA's wages - then again it may not have.  I therefore stress again that no one (on social media including Iles) actually knows.  So for Iles to be clearly inferring from his tweets (and twitter 'likes') it was for wages to KA is highly irresponsible of him - particularly you will note - that he's never to my knowledge put down the allegation in print in any of his many articles that he has written.  If he's so SURE of his facts about this then wouldn't you have thought he'd have said something in print by now?

Instead his obvious support has significantly added to the belief of nearly everyone on twitter that KA and his son are taking out £65k or more each and every month whilst the players and other bills go unpaid.

I repeat myself for the third time because it is such an important point - and it seems to me why so many people have become so anti-Anderson in recent weeks - that NO ONE (who wasn't involved in the commissioning and payment for the 'consultancy' payment) knows what the money was used for - least of all Iles - yet he's certainly fanned the flames of hatred towards the Anderson's by pinning his colours to this now widely held belief, by his behaviour on HIS PERSONAL twitter account in regards to it.

Would you consider that fair and impartial reporting of the facts - because I don't - yet there is now almost universal belief from what I see on twitter than the Anderson's are paying themselves wages - yet every INDEPENDANTLY AUDITED account as ever shown that not to be the case to date - and they've seen the books!

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Sluffy
spelling

[Tombwfc]

12 hours ago, Sluffy said:

What ever anyone thinks the facts are these....

 

 

Ok. That's not the question I was asking Carlos though. Iles may be inventing stories because he hates Ken, he may have a secret agenda to bring the club down from within and act as kingmaker for the ST, he may just be reporting the news and the information he receives how he sees it. Who can say. But I can't see why it would make any difference if he grew up a Bolton fan. 

Anyway, the club can't win here. Journo's stick together, and so any outside reporting of this is just going to make Ken look thin skinned and petulant. Public opinion seems largely in the BN's favour (call them all misinformed sheep if you like). And all the paper has to do is get Marc Iles a VPN and an ifollow account and he can crack on unaffected, only with even less reason to write what Ken would like him to write.

 

 

[Ghana White]

For what it's worth which isn't much it seems to me Isles has been unprofessional which is a bloody shame because a journalist who could have risen above point scoring or sides. Whojust printed the way he saw it professionally would be priceless at the moment. I've not got much idea what's going on and reading and listening to people I'm not convinced others have either. As a slight aside though it's ironic the club have banned Isles for unprofessional tweets but are happy to pay Lee Anderson who seems to spend most of his time doing nothing else.

[Zico]

6 hours ago, Sluffy said:

My point is there is a massive difference between a 'one-off' payment to him for a specific purpose than Iles implying (and probably believing himself) that he is taking over half a million EACH and every year for himself and whilst letting his company (Burnden Leisure) struggle to pay wages.

For a start no one knows what the payment for 'consultancy' was for other than those involved with the transaction - it may have been used for KA's wages - then again it may not have.  I therefore stress again that no one (on social media including Iles) actually knows.  So for Iles to be clearly inferring from his tweets (and twitter 'likes') it was for wages to KA is highly irresponsible of him - particularly you will note - that he's never to my knowledge put down the allegation in print in any of his many articles that he has written.  If he's so SURE of his facts about this then wouldn't you have thought he'd have said something in print by now?

Instead his obvious support has significantly added to the belief of nearly everyone on twitter that KA and his son are taking out £65k or more each and every month whilst the players and other bills go unpaid.

I repeat myself for the third time because it is such an important point - and it seems to me why so many people have become so anti-Anderson in recent weeks - that NO ONE (who wasn't involved in the commissioning and payment for the 'consultancy' payment) knows what the money was used for - least of all Iles - yet he's certainly fanned the flames of hatred towards the Anderson's by pinning his colours to this now widely held belief, by his behaviour on HIS PERSONAL twitter account in regards to it.

Would you consider that fair and impartial reporting of the facts - because I don't - yet there is now almost universal belief from what I see on twitter than the Anderson's are paying themselves wages - yet every INDEPENDANTLY AUDITED account as ever shown that not to be the case to date - and they've seen the books!

 

 

 

What is the difference between wages and a consultancy fee?

[Sluffy]

2 hours ago, ZicoKelly said:

What is the difference between wages and a consultancy fee?

A wage is paid to employees of a company, a consultancy fee is paid to an outside contractor (someone who is a supplier of a service to a company).

 

[Zico]

10 hours ago, Sluffy said:

A wage is paid to employees of a company, a consultancy fee is paid to an outside contractor (someone who is a supplier of a service to a company).

 

Yes, what's the difference for the recipient

[Leyther_Matt]

1 minute ago, ZicoKelly said:

Yes, what's the difference for the recipient

The tax responsibilities would fall on the recipient rather than the payee, I suppose. 

On a similar note, with KA’s payment being a consultancy fee rather than a wage, presumably it saved the club some cash with the NI/PAYE obligations falling on KA to declare rather than the club paying it out? I am far from an expert on the subject, so I apologise if I’m wrong. 

[jules_darby]

9 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Yes, what's the difference for the recipient

I’m sure doing what you do you know the tax implications 

However, practically, as the consultancy fees were too the business, the business could have many costs before KA receives a slice - their own employees that may have “consulted” as part of the fee, sub-contractors, legal support etc 

Basically, the services they provided may have been more than Ken’s time only

In fact that would be sensible, as if he’s just shifting wages that way I’m sure HMRC would want a word 

Edited December 16, 2018 by jules_darby

[Zico]

50 minutes ago, jules_darby said:

I’m sure doing what you do you know the tax implications 

However, practically, as the consultancy fees were too the business, the business could have many costs before KA receives a slice - their own employees that may have “consulted” as part of the fee, sub-contractors, legal support etc 

Basically, the services they provided may have been more than Ken’s time only

In fact that would be sensible, as if he’s just shifting wages that way I’m sure HMRC would want a word 

yeah, I'm not suggesting he's on some wrangle to get more value for money or anything

just that, I don't think, there's not much difference between saying you received 525k in "wages" (as per the perception on twitter), and receiving 525K in "consultancy fees" - other than being able to say "I've not took a wage"

I get that there then might be other things to factor in, but, the accounts for Burnden Leisure state that Ken received a fee:

"During the year K Anderson, via Inner Circle Sports & Media received £525,000 in consultancy fees"

and the accounts for Inner Circle, so far as I can see and from what Chris Custiodient said  (who understand these things), shows nothing in terms of wages / staff / costs etc. and just appear to show 1 transaction of buying the shares

so that, to me, looks like he took a "fee" (aka chunk of money out the club) and used it to buy the club for himself (if there's anything else in the accounts to suggest otherwise I am more than open to attempting to understand this, and change that point of view)

which is fine, but it seems reasonable this was the case (to me) as opposed to the belief that he didn't take a wage (or benefit financially) and "we don't know what the fee was used for and it could be anything, we just don't know"

Edited December 16, 2018 by ZicoKelly

[Sluffy]

41 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Yes, what's the difference for the recipient

Well my point was more about nobody actually knows who the recipient was at Inner Circle.

Yes it is KA's company but it may have been someone he employed to do the 'consultancy' rather than he receiving the payment himself.

It probably was KA and he probably used the money to buy Holdsworth's shares off the liquidator but nobody knows who wasn't involved in the transaction - yet people like Iles have implied that the money was 'wages' for Anderson and that similar amounts of money have been leaving the club in KA and LA's wages ever since.

I attach below for those who may be interested a couple of posts on Nuts that I think may be relevant to what we are discussing here.  The first is a question from 'Growler' the second a response by 'Ten Bob' -

 

Ken knows a lot of people  have a problem with the 525k Consultancy fee. They think Ken is drawing the equivalent of 10k a week while he isn't paying some of the bills and wages on time.
If Ken didn't pay the consultancy fee to himself to spend as he wished he could make himself more popular by explaining who the consultancy fee was paid to and what it was paid for.

 

KA could explain it if he hadn't been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement. That would be normal in this type of case.
Iles knows about this because I commented on it to Paul Holliday in the presence of Marc Iles immediately after the shareholders AGM a few months back. PH made no comment. Iles acknowledged it.
But the £472K Inner Circle paid for Holdsworth's shares is only part of the cost to the club. There's also the £250K paid to Sports Shield BWFC in May 2016. I expect HMRC would also have wanted tax on the £250K (probably at 32.5%).
Then on top of that there was Holdsworth's salary, legal fees and compensation for loss of office.

 

Note - Ten Bob (Chris Custodiet) had mentioned in the past that £525,000 less tax came to around the net £472,000 required to purchase the shares.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t18967-iles-response-to-his-ban#380814

 

[Zico]

2 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

 

It probably was KA and he probably used the money to buy Holdsworth's shares off the liquidator but nobody knows who wasn't involved in the transaction - yet people like Iles have implied that the money was 'wages' for Anderson and that similar amounts of money have been leaving the club in KA and LA's wages ever since

 

aye, which is why I am as excited for the next set of accounts as I am for the next series of Game Of Thrones as the picture will become a lot clearer

my money is on more fees

[jules_darby]

13 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

yeah, I'm not suggesting he's on some wrangle to get more value for money or anything

just that, I don't think, there's not much difference between saying you received 525k in "wages" (as per the perception on twitter), and receiving 525K in "consultancy fees" - other than being able to say "I've not took a wage"

I get that there then might be other things to factor in, but, the accounts for Burnden Leisure state that Ken received a fee:

"During the year K Anderson, via Inner Circle Sports & Media received £525,000 in consultancy fees"

and the accounts for Inner Circle, so far as I can see and from what Chris Custiodient said  (who understand these things), shows nothing in terms of wages / staff / costs etc. and just appear to show 1 transaction of buying the shares

so that, to me, looks like he took a "fee" (aka chunk of money out the club) and used it to buy the club for himself (if there's anything else in the accounts to suggest otherwise I am more than open to attempting to understand this, and change that point of view)

which is fine, but it seems reasonable this was the case (to me) as opposed to the belief that he didn't take a wage (or benefit financially) and "we don't know what the fee was used for and it could be anything, we just don't know"

As sluffy says

ad I thought I had, but probably really badly

Ypure only not seeing the difference in “wages to KA” and “consultancy fees” if you’re assuming that he got all that ££ and there are no associated business costs

 

[Zico]

25 minutes ago, jules_darby said:

As sluffy says

ad I thought I had, but probably really badly

Ypure only not seeing the difference in “wages to KA” and “consultancy fees” if you’re assuming that he got all that ££ and there are no associated business costs

 

In this case though it only looks like tax

The inner circle accounts show no other associated costs as far as I can see

So, it looks like he got paid a 525k fee, paid tax, then bought the club

Which isnt too different to getting paid a wage, paying tax, and spending your wages on a football club

One which he hoped to sell with a £5m profit, but that's another story / right of which there is no proof

[Sluffy]

3 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

In this case though it only looks like tax

The inner circle accounts show no other associated costs as far as I can see

So, it looks like he got paid a 525k fee, paid tax, then bought the club

Which isnt too different to getting paid a wage, paying tax, and spending your wages on a football club

One which he hoped to sell with a £5m profit, but that's another story / right of which there is no proof

But what if he hadn't bought the shares from the liquidator...?

Where were all these individuals of high net worth lining up to buy the club?

Who would have sorted out BluMarbles £8 million claim tied to the clubs assets?

Would we even had a club if he hadn't?

Not like he took the half million, partied with it and pissed it up a wall like the twitter sheep seem to believe he did with it and is still doing so this year too.

 

 

Just playing Devil's advocate.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Why does all this matter?

[jules_darby]

31 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

In this case though it only looks like tax

The inner circle accounts show no other associated costs as far as I can see

So, it looks like he got paid a 525k fee, paid tax, then bought the club

Which isnt too different to getting paid a wage, paying tax, and spending your wages on a football club

One which he hoped to sell with a £5m profit, but that's another story / right of which there is no proof

I only said it could be

It’s still an assumption that it’s a disguised wage

Oh and for Phil Shortland (don’t know your name on here); are the payments to LA as transfer agent fees? If so who cares, our spend on that is a fraction of others in our division

[Zico]

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

But what if he hadn't bought the shares from the liquidator...?

Where were all these individuals of high net worth lining up to buy the club?

Who would have sorted out BluMarbles £8 million claim tied to the clubs assets?

Would we even had a club if he hadn't?

Not like he took the half million, partied with it and pissed it up a wall like the twitter sheep seem to believe he did with it and is still doing so this year too.

 

 

Just playing Devil's advocate.

 

 

 

 

Yeah I get all that

He clearly didn't piss that money up the wall, I don't subscribe to the notion that he did, nor do I subscribe to the idea that he hasn't been paid or took money out the club one way or another in a way that was meant to be beneficial to himself 

We'll have to wait and see the next accounts in order to try and figure out what happened last season