Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Take Over


Kane57

Recommended Posts

@Mantra 3 doesn't work however you look at it unless its someone with money to throw away and an axe to grind... working in partnership with the club it's losing £0.5m a year. Cut ties and that would plummet....  

It makes absolutely no commercial sense to be pedaling it separately.... even less the stance Quantuma took of setting the stall out of doing it there way after the obvious fuck up from the club administrators, if that burns bridges with any potential club owner

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, royal white said:

Not been on this thread for a while so apologies if it’s already been mentioned. Just heard that Gudni and a consortium are one of the strongest bidders at the moment and the Chinese failed to table a bid in time.

Tommy Robinson is fronting an Asian consortium...

 

 

but you'd know all about that wouldn't you?

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Sorry Sluffy. I know it might sometimes be difficult to see the wood for the trees but its really quite simple. BM wanted their money back, the club didn't have it and KA had scoured around to get the best deal he could from alternative potential lenders. In the end he ran out of time and  options and so called up Eddie.

Eddie loved the club to bits and, despite every reservation he must have held,  once again agreed. But the terms where that the loan would be to KA who would have the personal responsibility to repay it and would be given another six months to try to sell the club or risk losing his shares. It was not an indefinite loan.

BM got their money back plus interest amounting to about 4% and their security was released with KA taking similar security to the one BM had. Nobody has taken £5m.

You never know who reads WW. I see that notice of the appointment of BWFC's administrators was filed at Companies House this morning. It was only  yesterday that I noted, on these pages, that Quantuma, the hotel administrators, had filed notice of appointment whilst BWFC's administrators hadn't. 1-0 to Quantuma?

Thank you again.

I still can't get my head around how it is deemed acceptable to secure a loan against something that already has loans against it to the full value of its book price, or alternatively put £5m into a company, pay off a debt with that £5m, then with the £5m being already spent secure the same 'spent' money against the asset you've just spent the money on to clear the previous debt.

I don't think it is a matter of not seeing the wood for the trees but more about not understanding the logic (or legality) for such actions to be done?

I would have no problem KA securing the money on assets free of liens on them first, then use the money to pay off BM and then become a secured creditor.

Alternatively I would have no problem if BWFAC paid BM off first and KA then put the £5m in as a secured the loan against the assets free of charge that BM previously had on them.

I however simply can't understand the logic/legality of £5m being put into the club so that £10m can then be taken out of it (£5m to settle BM and £5m to be withdrawn at a later date as a secured loan)???

I don't think that an unreasonable question to have been asked by me - even if others may think otherwise.

Anyway I bow to your knowledge an expertise on such matters (even though I still do not understand the answer/explanation given to this conundrum?) and am sure if there was something untoward in the transactions the ten auditors brought in by the Administrator would have spotted it by now.

I appreciate your help and advice as always.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sluffy what if Moonshift paid ICI the £5m... does that help your conundrum? 

The Moonshift loan was/is secured against ICI and BL assets, not the hotel.

At the time of that loan, I'll hazard a guess that all assets in the hotel were borrowed against via PBP and BM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, DLH said:

@Mantra 3 doesn't work however you look at it unless its someone with money to throw away and an axe to grind... working in partnership with the club it's losing £0.5m a year. Cut ties and that would plummet....  

It makes absolutely no commercial sense to be pedaling it separately.... even less the stance Quantuma took of setting the stall out of doing it there way after the obvious fuck up from the club administrators, if that burns bridges with any potential club owner

Yeah, I guess that's a sensible assumption to make but I won't rule anything out.

In the second paragraph you're saying that it makes no sense for Quantuma to distance themselves from the sale of the club? Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're getting at there. "The obvious fuck up" being when Appleton announced the sale of the hotel would be included in the 25 million proof of funds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sleepingindian said:

someone from facebook Word on the street.... no bid from the Chinese. Gudni Bergsson has tabled a bid with some big backers and he’s currently in what some would say “the strongest position”

 

 

29 minutes ago, royal white said:

Not been on this thread for a while so apologies if it’s already been mentioned. Just heard that Gudni and a consortium are one of the strongest bidders at the moment and the Chinese failed to table a bid in time.

Sounds a nice proposition but given the strict NDAs, it seems unlikely that the "strongest" bidder would allow their bid to be compromised by Facebook posts breaking NDAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mantra said:

 

Sounds a nice proposition but given the strict NDAs, it seems unlikely that the "strongest" bidder would allow their bid to be compromised by Facebook posts breaking NDAs.

true but id welcome any player from that era with backers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mantra, yep, that being the obvious fuck up.... if it wasn't he shouldn't have said it... particularly being through the channels he used - ie the club website.

May just be me, but I just thought the response from Quantuma was a bit bullish, didn't point to trying to work in partnership or anything to get the best outcome (I appreciate the best outcome they'd work for is possibly different to what a fan would want)... could have just been me though

 

@sleepingindian Hmmmm Icelandic Bankers.... 

 

Edited by DLH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mantra said:

 

Sounds a nice proposition but given the strict NDAs, it seems unlikely that the "strongest" bidder would allow their bid to be compromised by Facebook posts breaking NDAs.

Iles claims to know who's in the frame, so not out of the question somebody does know what's going on, BUT I doubt anybody with an ounce of sense would post it on facebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DomRepWanderer said:

Iles claims to know who's in the frame, so not out of the question somebody does know what's going on, BUT I doubt anybody with an ounce of sense would post it on facebook.

I doubt it was Gudni or his backers who posted it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DLH said:

@Mantra, yep, that being the obvious fuck up.... if it wasn't he shouldn't have said it... particularly being through the channels he used - ie the club website.

May just be me, but I just thought the response from Quantuma was a bit bullish, didn't point to trying to work in partnership or anything to get the best outcome... could have just been me though

 

In the initial announcement from the administrators of the Whites Hotel they said, "We will be working closely with the joint administrators of BWFC...to assist in achieving the optimum outcome...", which sounds fair enough.

Then in reply to the club administrators saying the hotel would be included, Quantuma said:

"the football club and the hotel are separate entities, so the joint administrators of Bolton Whites Hotel are instructing their own valuers and agents. Any interested parties in the hotel will need to make direct contact, as neither Bolton Wanderers or their agents have any instructions to discuss or collate offers."

I don't know about bullish but it was a strange series of events and the club administrators never acknowledged that Quantuma statement.

Anyway, I'm sure we could all nitpick the statements to death, I''m optimistic it'll all be sorted out relatively cleanly.

Even if Quantuma are "Ken's mates", they can't purposefully sabotage anything with their administrative duties and I don't know what Ken would have to gain from that anyway. Unless selling the hotel to someone of Ken's preference is counted as sabotage. Surely a clean transfer to the club owners is the best situation for all.

Edited by Mantra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DLH said:

@Sluffy what if Moonshift paid ICI the £5m... does that help your conundrum? 

The Moonshift loan was/is secured against ICI and BL assets, not the hotel.

At the time of that loan, I'll hazard a guess that all assets in the hotel were borrowed against via PBP and BM.

 

Thanks for the input but if check back in my posts over the last couple of days you will note that was indeed my starting position as to how Ken had the £5m to 'secure'/pay off the BM loan in the first place.

It is once the money enters the club that my problem occurs namely and as simply as I can word it...

£5m goes into the club, yet £10m comes out of it?

How can that be?

If the money was secured on other assets and then the BM loan was paid off - the club would be £5m less of debt owing to a long standing creditor but have secured an asset of £5m back free of debt from paying off BM - so a cost neutral transaction - with KAs new £5m loan still secured on £5m of assets other than those BM had their loan against - again in balance - as once the loan is paid back the club will again have £5m of these other assets free of debt too.

Similarly if the club 'found' £5m to pay off BM and thus had £5m of assets to then loan against and Ken then put the £5m against that - then again everything would be in balance.

However as it is being put to me (or at least how I understand it is being put to me) £5m was secured, which was used to both pay off the BM loan and still be there in existence to be redeemed some months later - or in other words you put £5m into a company - pay a £5m creditor in full, THEN take out another £5m - and say everything has balanced.

It hasn't!

I'm sorry I just can't see it, I don't think I'm being thick or bloody minded, or anything, or not willing to be able to hold my hand up and say I got it wrong - I simply don't see how £5m in equals £10m out.

I've had my say now, I realise people are getting sick of me raising the point and no doubt it will come out in the wash one way or another but I still maintain the logic simply doesn't hold up to examination in the way most/or even everybody but me, says it does - and if I'm right then I doubt that accountancy rules would allow this to happen.

I think that's fair comment from me surely?

Anyway I'll let it drop now.

Edited by Sluffy
Grammar errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter

Gudni, besides being a bit of a playing legend, has a lot of time for the club, and is the sort of character you'd want at the helm. Responsible, a deep understanding of football, and a bright individual with business and law experience. He'd do for me, big time.

Would put some bums on seats and give the place a boost.

On that basis, sounds to good to be true! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Gudni, besides being a bit of a playing legend, has a lot of time for the club, and is the sort of character you'd want at the helm. Responsible, a deep understanding of football, and a bright individual with business and law experience. He'd do for me, big time.

Would put some bums on seats and give the place a boost.

On that basis, sounds to good to be true! :)

Gundi personally recommended Daniel Izza to the ST and who went on to be its Chair.

Just saying like.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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