Take Over

[Andy Gee]

19 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

BM charge was against the hotel.

There doesn't seem much other assets free of leverage anywhere else within the Burnden Leisure group of companies.

So when the BM debt was settled and the hotel became free from £5m of security for assets then what better place for KA (or anyone else) to secure their money against?

The charge is not as you state that of being a 'football creditor' but that of a secured creditor - which gives him first call to satisfy his debt in full before those of unsecured creditors such as HMRC, the Town Hall, or even the admin and catering staff at the club.

Once his secured lending of £5m is paid off in full, that's his interest in the club at an end.  

It could be that money is raised elsewhere to pay him and the other creditors and not sell the hotel but unless a white knight comes along it is virtually impossible to see how that could be achieved.

It looks to me that the agreed solution is for the hotel to be sold and Anderson an possibly also James as secured creditors paid off in full.

This would reduce the debt on the footballing side of the club that is left to more manageable measures.

So the club could be sold in the coming weeks but still have Ken Anderson as a creditor to the tune of 5 million? That is why I find it hard to believe that the administrators could split the hotel from the club but then again I'm pissed and don't understand much when sober so not much chance now. 

[Sluffy]

40 minutes ago, Andy Gee said:

So the club could be sold in the coming weeks but still have Ken Anderson as a creditor to the tune of 5 million? That is why I find it hard to believe that the administrators could split the hotel from the club but then again I'm pissed and don't understand much when sober so not much chance now. 

No you are wrong (sort of anyway).

The sale clears the debts owed to the creditors - or at least proves they can be paid off as per an agreed negotiations with them - of whom Anderson is one.

Once all the creditors have been sorted out the club can be brought out of Administration without Anderson being any part of the club anymore (assuming of course he isn't the one who purchased the club from the Administrator!).

So yes whilst we could come out of Admin still owing KA £5m, it seems very unlikely that he or the buyer would particularly wish that to happen and both would presumably prefer a clean break I would suspect.

It probably would however mean there would be much less of a need to sell the hotel though.

I suggest that with Eddies estate deliberately not seeking an Administrator for the hotel (I assume Eddies estate took over ownership of it along with the club and umbrella company all at the same time) that this was done deliberately in the same way that it was Anderson who appointed the Administrator for the hotel only (and not the club or Burnden Leisure).  I can only conclude from this that some form of agreement had taken place and that in all probability it meant the sale of the hotel to settle KA's secured loan.

Without going into too much detail you've got to ask yourself who really wants to buy a third tier club, with at least a 12 point penalty, under a transfer embargo for something like £25m - and knowing that part of that sum is needed to keep the club solvent for the next two years - ie you aren't going to be making a profit on the club anytime soon!

Probably the most realistic answer is a fan of the club - another Eddie - with possibly Michael James being the most likely - but not having the same wealth to piss away as Davies had.

So I guess even with his good intents, money would be tight - so selling off the hotel may be the best way forward for him and probably the other five bidders, to be able to sort out some of the secured creditors such as Anderson and James himself, whilst possibly/probably putting back into the pot anything he is able to recover (up to £5.5m) from the hotel sale.

Seems to me the most realistic way to go as I've never believed these tales about the Bahrain Royal family, Ron Billionaire, the Turkish biscuit king or the Chinese State, etc, wanting to throw obscene wealth into the club but were 'put off' from doing business by 'nasty' Ken.

Some one with literally billions to spend stopped in their tracks and sent packing because Ken apparently wanted a few more million than was first agreed - it doesn't make any sense does it - a few million to a billionaire would simply be pocket change to the likes of you and me.

I had to laugh when one poster insisted that he was told a bloke with three billion to his name walked away from a deal with Anderson because he apparently moved the goalposts but he was definitely coming back to buy us when we went into Administration - that's a bit like me walking into Tesco's with a bundle of fifty pound notes at lunch time to buy a cheese sandwich for a pound and thinking, 'you know what I'll come back later this evening when they reduce it to 50p instead'.  What sort of world do these people live in to believe such tosh?

Oh I know, the twitter and Facebook world!

Maybe I'll be proved wrong but somehow I doubt I will.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Sluffy
grammar errors

[Chris Custodiet]

17 hours ago, Sluffy said:

You may be right, we simply don't know yet.

In fact when I first drafted out my post to which you refer I deliberately did not state a figure (25p) to the pound as the hotel is a separate entity to the club (although it falls under the umbrella of Burnden Leisure being the main company of the group).

But having done so I wondered if the sale of the club DID include the hotel then it would have to be at 25p in the £ to exit Admin as per EFL rules.

As it stands at the moment I thought it best to include the sale of the hotel with the club as was the clear hope/desire of the main Administrator, until we are informed officially otherwise - and thus added in the 25p.

As the hotels operating loss rose to £12.9m as stated in the last accounts and made a loss of £500k on trading in the year it really doesn't look good for non secured creditors of the hotel and I'm sure they will all have their fingers crossed that it does fall within the EFL regulations somehow.

I really should have refreshed my memory previously but Sluffy is right that the £5.5m PBP loan was made to and secured on the assets of Bolton Whites Hotel with additional security over the shares of Bolton Wanderers (but not Burnden Leisure shares). The money was used to pay off a NatWest loan and repay borrowings from other group companies (in essence money previously provided by ED).

The public record shows that PBP's ownership remains 80% Tom Morris and 20% Michael James. Its unlikely that any of this money would have been provided if MJ had not been a Wanderers supporter but equally unlikely that it was or is entirely up to Michael.

The loans Ken Anderson has made to the group are secured by charges against all three companies and remain a personal debt of KA to Moonshift unless he has also used any other personal monies or borrowings to help shore up the business whilst unsuccessfully trying to find a buyer. Howard's figure of £8m (plus accruing  interest and charges) seems credible until evidence emerges to the contrary.

Sluffy is mistaken about the £12.9m loss referred to in the Chairman's statement. I can see how this misunderstanding arose but this part of the statement referred to the operating loss of the football club, not the hotel. The trade creditors of the hotel at the last balance sheet date were £708K.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Chris Custodiet

[green genie]

It's possible to leave administration without fully clearing debts.

Argyles new owner in 2011 paid non secured creditors 0.7p in the pound screwing all the small business men 

Football creditors were paid over next 5years mainly by a balloon payment which the local council gave us loan for.

The previous owners are owed 2M which they are only due when /if we reach championship 

Frigging painful austerity.

[Tombwfc]

On 08/06/2019 at 00:06, Sluffy said:

- Eddie loaned KA (ICI Ltd) the £5m to pay it off, secured against the ownership shares of the club.
- Ken put £5m into the club to pay off the loan and secured it in his own name against the hotel - because payment of the BM loan meant that there was now £5m of assets now free of debt that he could secure his money against.
- I have a bit of a problem at this stage that nobody seems to be interested in but me, which is how could KA secure this £5m against the hotel assets until the BM loan was cleared first?  It's a bit like saying you've insured your car for say £20k being the full book value but you then go to another insurer and insure it again!? As it's illegal to claim twice on the car if it became a write off, then I would imagine it would also be illegal to secure money on assets that were already in hock to their full value?
- The timeline at Companies House clearly shows the loan for BM was paid off first before KA replaced it by securing his £5m against the hotel in its place some few days afterwards?
- That would make sense to me but mean that KA had used Eddies money to pay off the BM loan and THEN put £5m of his own into the club - now that he was certain he could get it back as a secured creditor - but no one wants to give any credence to that view - they much prefer that it's the same £5m the Eddie gave Ken and KA somehow found a way of fiddling the timeline to show he both paid off the loan and secured the same money against the hotel - both at the same time.  I can't see that being legal myself?

 

So, just to be clear, your opinion is that when all's said and done, Ken is going to be £5m out of pocket? As he'll (co-incidentally) owe Moonshift the same amount he personally lent the club?

[Tommy Banks]

8 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

So, just to be clear, your opinion is that when all's said and done, Ken is going to be £5m out of pocket? As he'll (co-incidentally) owe Moonshift the same amount he personally lent the club?

To much for my brain to fathom 

[Dr Faustus]

12 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I very much appreciate the good part of it, namely the up to the second breaking of news from around the world but detest the part of it which gives every moron around the world a voice to post the most gross and abusive filth that they would never dare to utter to anyone in real life.

I appreciate the documentary that I link to below about the Warwick University Rape Chat incident is not about Twitter per se but it does illustrates my point perfectly about what and how some people (they are at university so must have some level of intelligence and probably from family's who no doubt are solid and supportive of them) must think is acceptable and normal social media behaviour in todays society.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0799fyb/the-warwick-uni-rape-chat-scandal

In general I find twitter and other social media populated in the main with people with nothing much of interest or value to say - but it doesn't deter them from saying whatever it is they feel they need to share with the world.

I tend to find that people seem to be so gullible and easily led these days - a symptom of being too lazy (or stupid maybe?) to find out things for themselves.  Many seem to believe as gospel every word which certain influencers post on social media - hence my many comments about the need for these 'influencers' to be free of bias or agenda themselves.  Whatever your views or opinions of Marc Iles are it is obvious to even those most blindly loyal to him that he was never even handed in his reporting - anyone able to find anything at all he's wrote about negatively about Holdsworth, or the ST (even when his colleagues at the paper were reporting on Roger Allanson legal practice being closed down and his professional body reporting that he should not be trusted with his clients money - ffs!).

With people following like sheep, often ill informed, with a general lack of even maturity (born out no doubt of the norm these days of people spending considerable amounts of their lives on social media/ social chat/ playing games such as Football Manager or Fortnite, or whatever happens to be the most recent craze, we seem to be producing a generation of 'man-childs' whereby we are seeing twenty and even thirtysomethings (now with family's of their own) who simply have yet to become grown up in a mental capacity.  Is it any wonder that some seem to behave and act as stroppy teenagers who become petulantly and abusively if they don't get their own way or if you dare to disagree with them.  

If that is how they want to live their lives then let them get on with it, troll to their hearts content, carry internet grudges for years, be abusive to seek reaction, in short seek the attention they aren't managing to achieve in real life or through their relationship with the people in their lives.

I don't doubt such loneliness and neediness was around in my generation too but at least there wasn't the means to broadcast it to the world nor the ability to act as someone who you are not on line and from the safety of being behind your keyboards.

Twitter and other social media seems to have given everybody a voice but unfortunately most don't seem to know the golden rule of communication, namely that it is much better to remain silent and be thought to be stupid than to speak and remove all doubt!

 

You didn't really expect a one or two word answer from me when you ask the question did you?

 

 

You didnt really expect me to read your whole response did you? 

In the nicest possible way, you've padded way too much. You're informative, and can clearly articulate yourself very well- just need to be a little more concise. You need to bear in mind most of us will at one point be reading this on a 6 inch screen; your posts can seem a little overwhelming. 

[HR]

FFS, someone post some tits before we turn into stone. 

[Sluffy]

20 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

So, just to be clear, your opinion is that when all's said and done, Ken is going to be £5m out of pocket? As he'll (co-incidentally) owe Moonshift the same amount he personally lent the club?

Ken doesn't owe Moonshift anything.

The loan from Eddie was to Inner Circle Investments Ltd.

The loan to the club was from Ken Anderson.

Inner Circle Investments Ltd and KA are two completely separate legal entities.

When are people finally going to grasp such a simple principle?

Eddie's estate will need to chase the debt with ICI Ltd for settlement and not KA.

Depends then what happens with ICI Ltd.

 

What's your take on things?

Is it that Ken wangled £5m out of Eddie, cooked the books so that they showed with that money he paid off both the BM loan (£5M) and at the same time secured himself a further £5m on assets.

Wouldn't that be fraud and blatantly obvious to detect - by the auditors of the annual accounts let alone during any due diligence / forensic accounting as and when the club was sold or became insolvent, which ever being the earliest?

 

I could understand something like Eddies loan to IC Ltd loaned in turn to KA who in turn put it into the club.

I could understand him securing this £5m against assets, then the money used to pay off BM - I'd be happy with that timeline but there are two issues that seem to prevent that from being a possibility, the first is that BM was settled before KA secured his loan into the club and the second is were there any actual assets left at the time for him to secure the loan on?

If there was 'surplus' assets to secure his £5m on and he did so BEFORE the BM loan was settled, then fine.

The time line doesn't show it that way though?

BM settled on the 24th Sept, 2018 -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00043026/charges/rJUDZCv8wW8F7r9OQG00W2wpCxU

KA becomes secure creditor on the 27th Sept, 2018 -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00043026/charges/zuFLo9CUMVpD9kLSumePBFGSR-g

So is the timeline somehow wrong or perhaps the club somehow came up with £5m to pay off BM first then KA could secure Eddies money against the freed up asset?

Maybe some sort of bridging loan was made for a few day period - but if so there doesn't seem to be any record of a charge being set against any of the clubs assets to protect against default(?) maybe Ken put it in himself knowing he would be getting it back in a day or so when he secured the Eddie loan?

 

Perhaps this is a more realistic scenario of what might have actually happened then Eddies loan being 'double counted' Companies House 'time line' being wrong, or my suggestion that if Eddies money must have been used to pay off BM then it must be Ken's £5m that's in the club now.

If so this could play out in a way where Ken gets his £5m back from the Administrator at the hotel, puts it back into ICI Ltd, which in turn clears it's debt with Moonshift.

 

Seems reasonable to me, what about you?

[Cheese]

20 hours ago, gonzo said:

Not been on this thread for 3 weeks. 

Whats happening then?

Fuck all

[Steejay]

14 minutes ago, HR said:

FFS, someone post some tits before we turn into stone. 

[radcliffe white]

Some dirty fucker wearing slag wellies would go down well 

no point in chatting about football till next Friday 

[BUNBURY]

24 minutes ago, Steejay said:

Thanks.

[Sluffy]

38 minutes ago, Dr Faustus said:

You didnt really expect me to read your whole response did you? 

In the nicest possible way, you've padded way too much. You're informative, and can clearly articulate yourself very well- just need to be a little more concise. You need to bear in mind most of us will at one point be reading this on a 6 inch screen; your posts can seem a little overwhelming. 

Of course I expected you to read it - and you did - thank you.

I accept your positive criticism in full - you are correct and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if 90% on here don't bother to read what I write, but I don't articulate myself for them.  If they only have the attention span of a goldfish then any deeper meanings and reasonings that I try to impart are clearly lost on them.

I actually write for my own benefit - it helps me try and understand things better, and I simply pass on my thoughts/info/views/knowledge/guesses or whatever people wish to call them for other people to read/enjoy/ridicule or largely ignore because I've used more than 140 characters (or should that be more than 14 characters?).

I apologise to anyone wanting to read what I've said on a small screen, I can appreciate how unappetising that might seem but I am trying to add more to the discussion than Ken's a cunt, Lee's got crabs and real men don't stand up to wipe their bum or sit down to piss.

I guess this is about as concise as I get so I will exit the post at this stage - but don't expect me to attempt to be a crowd pleaser in future as I'm far too ancient to be changing my ways at my time of life - so back to the send you to sleep posts from me no doubt - nor would I want anyone ending their dump too early either as that would be highly irresponsible of me would it not!

 

[RoadRunnerFan]

49 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

 

I actually write for my own benefit - it helps me try and understand things better, and I simply pass on my thoughts/info/views/knowledge/guesses or whatever people wish to call them for other people to read/enjoy/ridicule or largely ignore because I've used more than 140 characters (or should that be more than 14 characters?)

 

14,000 characters would be a good target for you to aim to get down to.

Maybe plan your key points and post what you  would consider to be an executive summary? Your daily round ups a while back are an example of where you did this.

Your content is insightful - you would be informative to a much bigger group if you could moderate the length of your posts. Talking about 140 characters just makes you sound churlish.

[Sluffy]

16 minutes ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

14,000 characters would be a good target for you to aim to get down to.

Maybe plan your key points and post what you  would consider to be an executive summary? Your daily round ups a while back are an example of where you did this.

Your content is insightful - you would be informative to a much bigger group if you could moderate the length of your posts. Talking about 140 characters just makes you sound churlish.

Thanks for your good intent, I do appreciate it.

The 140 characters was meant to be a joke - sorry if it wasn't that funny.

I write to please myself not to provide a service to others, if some/many can't be arsed to read my stuff and possibly become better informed then that's their loss - ignorance is bliss apparently.

I'm more than happy to share what I think/believe to be as correct as far as I can make sense of things, with everyone else - but I don't guarantee to be correct.  If people are happy to take it for what it is, then fine.  If they don't want to read it or consider that I'm a know nothing, wordy, windbag, then that's fine too, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

I post simply to help me understand/make sense out of what is going.  I'm not intentionally rude/abusive/offensive to anyone.  I'm not here to pick sides or demean others for having opposing views to mine, I simply try to seek out the truth than swim in the river of ignorance and hatred with most others.

I know such behaviour makes me appear odd or weird to some but that's just how I am.

Please excuse my quaint, outdated ways and take from my posts what you will, or simply skip over them if you prefer. 

All of my posts today are tomorrows internet chip papers after all.

No gravy on my fish remember, thank you.

[BUNBURY]

Mushy peas?

[Tombwfc]

4 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Ken doesn't owe Moonshift anything.

The loan from Eddie was to Inner Circle Investments Ltd.

The loan to the club was from Ken Anderson.

Inner Circle Investments Ltd and KA are two completely separate legal entities.

When are people finally going to grasp such a simple principle?

Eddie's estate will need to chase the debt with ICI Ltd for settlement and not KA.

Depends then what happens with ICI Ltd.

 

What's your take on things?

Is it that Ken wangled £5m out of Eddie, cooked the books so that they showed with that money he paid off both the BM loan (£5M) and at the same time secured himself a further £5m on assets.

Wouldn't that be fraud and blatantly obvious to detect - by the auditors of the annual accounts let alone during any due diligence / forensic accounting as and when the club was sold or became insolvent, which ever being the earliest?

 

I could understand something like Eddies loan to IC Ltd loaned in turn to KA who in turn put it into the club.

I could understand him securing this £5m against assets, then the money used to pay off BM - I'd be happy with that timeline but there are two issues that seem to prevent that from being a possibility, the first is that BM was settled before KA secured his loan into the club and the second is were there any actual assets left at the time for him to secure the loan on?

If there was 'surplus' assets to secure his £5m on and he did so BEFORE the BM loan was settled, then fine.

The time line doesn't show it that way though?

BM settled on the 24th Sept, 2018 -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00043026/charges/rJUDZCv8wW8F7r9OQG00W2wpCxU

KA becomes secure creditor on the 27th Sept, 2018 -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00043026/charges/zuFLo9CUMVpD9kLSumePBFGSR-g

So is the timeline somehow wrong or perhaps the club somehow came up with £5m to pay off BM first then KA could secure Eddies money against the freed up asset?

Maybe some sort of bridging loan was made for a few day period - but if so there doesn't seem to be any record of a charge being set against any of the clubs assets to protect against default(?) maybe Ken put it in himself knowing he would be getting it back in a day or so when he secured the Eddie loan?

 

Perhaps this is a more realistic scenario of what might have actually happened then Eddies loan being 'double counted' Companies House 'time line' being wrong, or my suggestion that if Eddies money must have been used to pay off BM then it must be Ken's £5m that's in the club now.

If so this could play out in a way where Ken gets his £5m back from the Administrator at the hotel, puts it back into ICI Ltd, which in turn clears it's debt with Moonshift.

 

Seems reasonable to me, what about you?

 

Which would leave Ken £5m out of pocket.

I haven't seen anything to believe Ken has or has ever had £5m quid to chuck around (whether he knew he'd get it back eventually or not). Nor do I believe Eddie would put £5m into a club he'd just sold for £1 if he wasn't sure he'd get that back.

By far the most logical explanation is that the £5m owed to Ken by BWFC and the £5m owed to Eddie by ICI/Ken is the same £5m. Ken gets his money, settles his debt and it's equals pequals.

[Sluffy]

2 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Which would leave Ken £5m out of pocket.

I haven't seen anything to believe Ken has or has ever had £5m quid to chuck around (whether he knew he'd get it back eventually or not). Nor do I believe Eddie would put £5m into a club he'd just sold for £1 if he wasn't sure he'd get that back.

By far the most logical explanation is that the £5m owed to Ken by BWFC and the £5m owed to Eddie by ICI/Ken is the same £5m. Ken gets his money, settles his debt and it's equals pequals.

I still keep coming back to the two points I've mention above on this

1 - Can you actually secure assets against something that has already been secured against?

2 - Why does the Companies House time-line clearly show the BM loan was paid off first before KA secured the £5m - in other words if the money has already been spent how can he put it in the club two days later for it to be secured - presumably on the very asset he's just settled the debt on?  And if the money was there first before the BM loan was settled how could he secure it against the hotel which already had James (£5.5m) and BM's (£5m) already secured against it with the hotel having a total book value for £10.5m? (See point 1 above).

I've raised this a number of times but no one has yet been able to give an unambiguous explanation how this could be achieved legally.

If there is no way that that it can be done legally, then the only other explanation is that KA did indeed put in £5m of his own money.

Indeed your assumption/premise above must be flawed in that if Eddie was going to put money without losing it and KA wasn't going to put anything of his own money in, then one of them must lose with the BM loan is paid - either Eddie ends up paying it and has put £5m into the club and doesn't get his loan back, or KA has paid it but still is in debt to Eddie for the original £5m loan?

Maybe not that easy peasy as you perhaps think?

The answer could possibly be something like Eddies loan did actually pay off BM, KA acquired an additional £5m by some sort of factoring of future income such as ST money or transfer fees or some such - paid to ICI Ltd and put it into the club under his own name secured against the asset of the hotel whose charge against it had just been settled with the payment to BM?

The problem with that though is no one has taken out any charges against ICI Ltd to secure the factored £5m advance.  And I can't see anyone advancing such an amount without such sort of security.

I know you would love it to be that Eddie gave the money to Ken, who secured the money then paid off BM with it, then took out another £5m from the club to refund himself so he could pay back Eddie and no one lose - but I'm not sure as to the legality of this as it takes £5m out of the club which is virtually insolvent at the time and fell into Administration just a matter of months later.

Particularly when the club couldn't pay off the BM loan from its own resources when it was finally settled as recently as Sept 2018 - and following the preseason players strike the month before over the non payment of wages.

Doesn't look good does it?

[embankment]

I am totally confused and cannot wait for all this to be over. 

Has Howard buggered off ?

New owners before i go on my jollys , start of July ?

Will Rod be the next person to kick a football into the crowd at the Unibol ?

Will Black Edge ever go on sale at the hotel ?

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by embankment

[Dr Faustus]

16 hours ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

14,000 characters would be a good target for you to aim to get down to.

Maybe plan your key points and post what you  would consider to be an executive summary? Your daily round ups a while back are an example of where you did this.

Your content is insightful - you would be informative to a much bigger group if you could moderate the length of your posts. Talking about 140 characters just makes you sound churlish.

You can lead a horse to water mate... 

[Chris Custodiet]

14 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I still keep coming back to the two points I've mention above on this

1 - Can you actually secure assets against something that has already been secured against?

2 - Why does the Companies House time-line clearly show the BM loan was paid off first before KA secured the £5m - in other words if the money has already been spent how can he put it in the club two days later for it to be secured - presumably on the very asset he's just settled the debt on?  And if the money was there first before the BM loan was settled how could he secure it against the hotel which already had James (£5.5m) and BM's (£5m) already secured against it with the hotel having a total book value for £10.5m? (See point 1 above).

I've raised this a number of times but no one has yet been able to give an unambiguous explanation how this could be achieved legally.

If there is no way that that it can be done legally, then the only other explanation is that KA did indeed put in £5m of his own money.

Indeed your assumption/premise above must be flawed in that if Eddie was going to put money without losing it and KA wasn't going to put anything of his own money in, then one of them must lose with the BM loan is paid - either Eddie ends up paying it and has put £5m into the club and doesn't get his loan back, or KA has paid it but still is in debt to Eddie for the original £5m loan?

Maybe not that easy peasy as you perhaps think?

The answer could possibly be something like Eddies loan did actually pay off BM, KA acquired an additional £5m by some sort of factoring of future income such as ST money or transfer fees or some such - paid to ICI Ltd and put it into the club under his own name secured against the asset of the hotel whose charge against it had just been settled with the payment to BM?

The problem with that though is no one has taken out any charges against ICI Ltd to secure the factored £5m advance.  And I can't see anyone advancing such an amount without such sort of security.

I know you would love it to be that Eddie gave the money to Ken, who secured the money then paid off BM with it, then took out another £5m from the club to refund himself so he could pay back Eddie and no one lose - but I'm not sure as to the legality of this as it takes £5m out of the club which is virtually insolvent at the time and fell into Administration just a matter of months later.

Particularly when the club couldn't pay off the BM loan from its own resources when it was finally settled as recently as Sept 2018 - and following the preseason players strike the month before over the non payment of wages.

Doesn't look good does it?

Sorry Sluffy but that's not the way I see it. When Blumarble advanced money to SSBWFC in March 2016 it took out charges against all the companies in the Burnden Leisure group as security for repayment. That included Bolton Whites Hotel which also had a  charge against it in respect of the £5.5m lent by PBP.  I expect that, in the case of the hotel,  BM's would be a second charge lying behind the first charge of PBP.

When BM got their money back (£4m plus £400K negotiated interest) in September 2018 BM, or lawyers acting on their behalf, filed documents confirming that their charges were satisfied. The money had come from Ken Anderson who, in turn, had borrowed the money from ED. As security for repayment KA took charges against Burnden Leisure, Bolton Wanderers and Bolton Whites Hotel. Once again the hotel charge is probably a second charge lying behind the prior charge of PBP.

Its often worth noting the dating of documents but in this case I fear you may be reading too much into the fact that KA's charges are recorded as 27 September 2018 whilst the satisfaction of the BM charges are dated 24 September 2018.

I see that Iles of the Beeno cannot resist stirring the pot at each and every opportunity. Only simpletons would have thought that BWFC would have been able to pay its way in 2018/19 without new money from somewhere or the miracle of another Madine-like sale.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Chris Custodiet

[NZtrotter]

This thread is more boring than rugby

[Wanderlust]

On 09/06/2019 at 01:48, Sluffy said:

I had to laugh when one poster insisted that he was told a bloke with three billion to his name walked away from a deal with Anderson because he apparently moved the goalposts but he was definitely coming back to buy us when we went into Administration - that's a bit like me walking into Tesco's with a bundle of fifty pound notes at lunch time to buy a cheese sandwich for a pound and thinking, 'you know what I'll come back later this evening when they reduce it to 50p instead'.  What sort of world do these people live in to believe such tosh?

Oh I know, the twitter and Facebook world!

Maybe I'll be proved wrong but somehow I doubt I will.

That's a coincidence because I reported a similar story which you poo-poo'd that went along the lines of you going into Tesco's with a bundle of fifty pound notes to buy a cheese sandwich on the recommendation of a respected business acquaintance only to be told that the sandwich was a bargain at £2, but when you read the label it said it there was no cheese, only butter and it was £8.50 if you wanted both halves as Tesco's had already promised the other half to a bloke in the warehouse and there was "store manager's commission" to consider. And after you'd asked to see the manager to clarify what the price and contents were, you were told to wait for half an hour whilst he was on his fag break until he finally came out stinking of smoke and told you "What the f*** do you want? I'm a busy and very important man around here. It is what it is - are you f****** buying it or not?" So you put your money away as you already own 5 Michelin starred restaurants and Subway and you don't deal with rude liars.

Only it wasn't you in my story. It was Ron Burkle's acquisition team. Helluva coincidence though.

 

[Sluffy]

29 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Sorry Sluffy but that's not the way I see it. When Blumarble advanced money to SSBWFC in March 2016 it took out charges against all the companies in the Burnden Leisure group as security for repayment. That included Bolton Whites Hotel which also had a  charge against it in respect of the £5.5m lent by PBP.  I expect that, in the case of the hotel,  BM's would be a second charge lying behind the first charge of PBP.

When BM got their money back (£4m plus £400K negotiated interest) in September 2018 BM, or lawyers acting on their behalf, filed documents confirming that their charges were satisfied. The money had come from Ken Anderson who, in turn, had borrowed the money from ED. As security for repayment KA took charges against Burnden Leisure, Bolton Wanderers and Bolton Whites Hotel. Once again the hotel charge is probably a second charge lying behind the prior charge of PBP.

Its often worth noting the dating of documents but in this case I fear you may be reading too much into thefact that KA's charges are recorded as 27 September 2018 whilst the satisfaction of the BM charges are dated 24 September 2018.

I see that Iles of the Beeno cannot resist stirring the pot at each and every opportunity. Only numpties would have thought that BWFC would have been able to pay its way in 2018/19 without new money from somewhere or the miracle of another Madine-like sale.

Ok and thank you, I am now happy to accept that now that someone with knowledge of accountancy can vouch for the discrepancy of the time line and the ability to do such a sequence of actions within the legality of company law.

I still am surprised however that this sequence of events  means that someone who actioned them is now able to take £5m out of the carcass of a company that was already struggling to pay its way and in default of wages/bonuses at the time leading to the player strike against St Mirren and continuing unpaid bonuses to the manager and his staff and former players still at the time of money into the club and straight out again to pay BM.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/16694087.ex-bolton-midfielder-karl-henry-claims-he-is-owed-money-by-club/

I would still have thought Ken Anderson's charge would be a third charge lying behind PBP and BM on the hotel and behind Moonshift, and BM on the club/BL - as if the money was used to settle BM first then surely it no longer was in the possession of KA to secure it against the assets freed up from the newly settled BM loan? 

Presumably then you can have as many loans as you like secured against the same assets even if they amount to well in excess of the assets actual worth - which doesn't seem good accountancy practice to me?

Never the less thank you once again.

(Also thank you for clearing up my earlier error in respect of the arrears of the hotel's account - I was indeed thrown by the initial Directors statement contained within the actual hotel accounts as you correctly assumed).