Take Over

[Okocha10]

Don't get how Anderson can even claim he's owed 7.5 million when there's no report from administrator to say he's owed that amount of money, surely is should just go off the findings of the administrator? 

[Boby Brno]

10 minutes ago, hughmungus said:

So when it says "uncertain" does it mean once he settles with the club, his charge on the hotel disappears ?

I would assume so. I would also assume that it is this that is holding everything up. 

[Chris Custodiet]

48 minutes ago, Okocha10 said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/former-bolton-owner-ken-anderson-claims-to-be-owed-7-5m-by-club-976580t0t

 

Here's another journo reporting half the story. The £525K consultancy fee was almost certainly needed to avoid punitive tax charges relating to payments made by BWFC to Holdsworth and the liquidators of Holdsworth's SSBWFC. You won't find this anywhere but you will find the £472K Anderson's company spent on paying off Holdsworth and agreeing settlement with Blumarble to keep the show on the road.

The £7.5m is broadly in line with Howard's revelations early on in this thread. The £5m borrowed from ED to pay off Blumarble has been well documented. The other c.£2.5m hasn't but in all probability related to money ED lent to KA in the first half of the 2017/18 season. i.e. before the Madine sale. I cannot see how the club could have stayed in business until January 2018 without additional funding.

Its interesting that the hotel administrators have filed their report at Companies House whilst the administrators of BWFC haven't (or not yet). Interesting also that the Beeno, Grauniad, Times, PFA, ST etc, etc, etc, have made little or no comment on Mr Holdsworth's part in this sorry state of affairs.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Chris Custodiet

[Mounts Kipper]

9 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Here's another journo reporting half the story. The £525K consultancy fee was almost certainly needed to avoid punitive tax charges relating to payments made by BWFC to Holdsworth and the liquidators of Holdsworth's SSBWFC. You won't find this anywhere but you will find the £472K Anderson's company spent on paying off Holdsworth and agreeing settlement with Blumarble to keep the show on the road.

The £7.5m is broadly in line with Howard's revelations early on in this thread. The £5m borrowed from ED to pay off Blumarble has been well documented. The other c.£2.5m hasn't but in all probability related to money ED lent to KA in the first half of the 2017/18 season. i.e. before the Madine sale. I cannot see how the club could have stayed in business until January 2018 without additional funding.

Its interesting that the hotel administrators have filed their report at Companies House whilst the administrators of BWFC haven't (or not yet). Interesting also that the Beeno, Grauniad, Times, PFA, ST etc, etc, etc, have made little or no comment on Mr Holdsworth's part in this sorry state of affairs.

It’s good to hear your input but ffs stop referring to the Bolton news as the Beeno, you sound about 11 with that persistent schoolboy jibe. 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Chris Custodiet]

1 hour ago, Boby Brno said:

It’s in the clubs administrators report. The hotel report states that his charge against the hotel is dependent on his payoff from the club. The date of the charge is September 2018. Just after his loan from ED.

I'll be very interested to see what this report says and doesn't say when it is released into the public domain. Rubin's have once again been beaten to the punch by Quantuma.

[radcliffe white]

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I think you are correct, players are on strike, seems no other solution, we either get deal done before season starts pay players and bring some players in or I think we’re goosed as I can’t see the EFL letting us start the season in this state of disarray, can anyone see another way out of this if  the takeover isn’t finalised? 

That’s what I was getting at yesterday, efl must have a deadline day for themselves

[Chris Custodiet]

23 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It’s good to hear your input but ffs stop referring to the Bolton news as the Beeno, you sound about 11 with that persistent schoolboy jibe. 

I could call it the Bolton Fake News if you'd prefer it but as I'm not  a Trump fan I'll stick with the Beeno.

[Boby Brno]

8 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I'll be very interested to see what this report says and doesn't say when it is released into the public domain. Rubin's have once again been beaten to the punch by Quantuma.

I thought it would have been published by now. I’ve been reluctant to reveal too much until it’s in the public domain. I’m guessing they may publish soon due to the concern and that Quantuma published first. We’ll have to wait and see.

[Benny The Ball]

3 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Hotel administrators statement is now up on Companies House website

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03674979/filing-history

The bits that stand out to me are sections 5.5 and 5.6 on page 7 and 5.12 on page 8 

5.5   It should be noted that the joint administrators will shortly be engaging in a marketing and sale process of the above assets. This has been delayed since the commencement of the administration due to the amount of operational issues that the company has faced since the commencement of the administration , including re-opening the hotel. Additionally since the company is inextricably linked to the football club, the sale of the hotel is highly contingent on the sale of the football club. 

5.6   As Such , given the preferred bidder of the football clubs administrators was only confirmed recently the joint administrators considered it appropriate to delay marketing the hotel until such time as the sale of the football club was further progressed. 

5.12   To advise on appropriate legal matters and to prepare required legal documentation the joint administrators instructed Walker Morris LLP a firm of Lawyers with the appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with these types of administrations 

 I find 5.12 shocking as Walker Morris are Ken Andersons solicitors and as such have a massive conflict of Interest and the Hotels creditors ought to be raising that as a major concern

With regard to 5.5 and 5.6 I just detect the hand of KA all over this trying yet again to manipulate the situation to his own ends - If the administrators accept the Hotel is inextricably linked to the football club , then surely they must accept that without a football club there will be no hotel , and to my mind sitting back and not marketing the hotel for 6 weeks is inexcusable - they should have been marketed concurrently 

 

 

 

[Mounts Kipper]

12 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

The bits that stand out to me are sections 5.5 and 5.6 on page 7 and 5.12 on page 8 

5.5   It should be noted that the joint administrators will shortly be engaging in a marketing and sale process of the above assets. This has been delayed since the commencement of the administration due to the amount of operational issues that the company has faced since the commencement of the administration , including re-opening the hotel. Additionally since the company is inextricably linked to the football club, the sale of the hotel is highly contingent on the sale of the football club. 

5.6   As Such , given the preferred bidder of the football clubs administrators was only confirmed recently the joint administrators considered it appropriate to delay marketing the hotel until such time as the sale of the football club was further progressed. 

5.12   To advise on appropriate legal matters and to prepare required legal documentation the joint administrators instructed Walker Morris LLP a firm of Lawyers with the appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with these types of administrations 

 I find 5.12 shocking as Walker Morris are Ken Andersons solicitors and as such have a massive conflict of Interest and the Hotels creditors ought to be raising that as a major concern

With regard to 5.5 and 5.6 I just detect the hand of KA all over this trying yet again to manipulate the situation to his own ends - If the administrators accept the Hotel is inextricably linked to the football club , then surely they must accept that without a football club there will be no hotel , and to my mind sitting back and not marketing the hotel for 6 weeks is inexcusable - they should have been marketed concurrently 

 

 

 

So KA influence is still all over our club and it’s future, would it be beneficial financially  to KA if we actually ended up liquidated? I ask this as that was what KA was close to doing when we were last under a winding up order and if it is a better outcome for him,  then is that now the most likely outcome? 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Okocha10]

16 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

The bits that stand out to me are sections 5.5 and 5.6 on page 7 and 5.12 on page 8 

5.5   It should be noted that the joint administrators will shortly be engaging in a marketing and sale process of the above assets. This has been delayed since the commencement of the administration due to the amount of operational issues that the company has faced since the commencement of the administration , including re-opening the hotel. Additionally since the company is inextricably linked to the football club, the sale of the hotel is highly contingent on the sale of the football club. 

5.6   As Such , given the preferred bidder of the football clubs administrators was only confirmed recently the joint administrators considered it appropriate to delay marketing the hotel until such time as the sale of the football club was further progressed. 

5.12   To advise on appropriate legal matters and to prepare required legal documentation the joint administrators instructed Walker Morris LLP a firm of Lawyers with the appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with these types of administrations 

 I find 5.12 shocking as Walker Morris are Ken Andersons solicitors and as such have a massive conflict of Interest and the Hotels creditors ought to be raising that as a major concern

With regard to 5.5 and 5.6 I just detect the hand of KA all over this trying yet again to manipulate the situation to his own ends - If the administrators accept the Hotel is inextricably linked to the football club , then surely they must accept that without a football club there will be no hotel , and to my mind sitting back and not marketing the hotel for 6 weeks is inexcusable - they should have been marketed concurrently 

 

 

 

Very good spot that, sounds dodgy as out what's going on, doesn't surprise me though in the slightest. Here's some involvement in the past with Walker Morris LLP with Ken Anderson https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/news/walker-morris-advises-on-purchase-of-bolton-wanderers-fc/

Edited July 19, 2019 by Okocha10

[Chris Custodiet]

7 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

The bits that stand out to me are sections 5.5 and 5.6 on page 7 and 5.12 on page 8 

5.5   It should be noted that the joint administrators will shortly be engaging in a marketing and sale process of the above assets. This has been delayed since the commencement of the administration due to the amount of operational issues that the company has faced since the commencement of the administration , including re-opening the hotel. Additionally since the company is inextricably linked to the football club, the sale of the hotel is highly contingent on the sale of the football club. 

5.6   As Such , given the preferred bidder of the football clubs administrators was only confirmed recently the joint administrators considered it appropriate to delay marketing the hotel until such time as the sale of the football club was further progressed. 

5.12   To advise on appropriate legal matters and to prepare required legal documentation the joint administrators instructed Walker Morris LLP a firm of Lawyers with the appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with these types of administrations 

 I find 5.12 shocking as Walker Morris are Ken Andersons solicitors and as such have a massive conflict of Interest and the Hotels creditors ought to be raising that as a major concern

With regard to 5.5 and 5.6 I just detect the hand of KA all over this trying yet again to manipulate the situation to his own ends - If the administrators accept the Hotel is inextricably linked to the football club , then surely they must accept that without a football club there will be no hotel , and to my mind sitting back and not marketing the hotel for 6 weeks is inexcusable - they should have been marketed concurrently 

 

 

 

You have a point on 5.12 but wouldn't Quantuma's decision to use WM be justified if it was more cost effective and quicker to use lawyers that were right up to speed on the case and had all the relevant expertise? I assume WM would have considered the 'conflict of interest' issue.

If it is the case that Ken Anderson borrowed several million pounds from Eddie Davies to try to keep BWFC in business whilst a longer term solution was sought and the Eddie Davies Trust now want their money back, why would it be wrong for Ken Anderson to rely on the security for the loans just like any other secured lender would?

[radcliffe white]

3 hours ago, marple whites said:

Any decent games we can go to in London that day - if the worst happens ?

Going via brum 

coventry v Southend at St. Andrews😀

[radcliffe white]

Rumours about that magennis & otzumer handed notices in 

[birch-chorley]

Why would any major creditor want a delay though? Seems strange 

Is it possible that liquidation would generate more than administration given the value of the land? As you could flatten the stadium and develop the whole lot (as well as Lostock) 

I get that nothing is stopping anyone buying in admin and liquidating the football club but I guess that isn’t great PR for anyone involved 

[Sweep]

11 minutes ago, radcliffewhite1 said:

Rumours about that magennis & otzumer handed notices in 

I'm surprised it's taken this long to be honest

[Farrelli]

Well I can only see this going one way now, very sad.

[ErnestTurnip]

You can't help but think that any senior pro who hasn't done this already just isn't wanted by anyone else.

[Spider]

It's always darkest before the dawn, my friends.....

[radcliffe white]

1 minute ago, Spider said:

It's always darkest before the dawn, my friends.....

Agree, but my optimism is fading by the day tbh 

[Sweep]

4 minutes ago, ErnestTurnip said:

You can't help but think that any senior pro who hasn't done this already just isn't wanted by anyone else.

I said that the other day, or they know they won't get anything like the salary they're contracted to get here (I know they're not being paid, but they might have been hanging on, thinking a solution was close)  -  even if we start the season, we're going down anyway, so maybe a good thing to get rid anyway, and get some cheaper players in (if we get that far.....)

[Duck Egg]

I'll be amazed if Parky doesn't walk shortly too

[Zico]

29 minutes ago, ErnestTurnip said:

You can't help but think that any senior pro who hasn't done this already just isn't wanted by anyone else.

Magennis was linked with Rangers and Oztumer with Charlton - they'll get a contract somewhere else no problem

maybe they were just doing the decent thing and waiting as long as they possibly could for things to be sorted out here in order for them to get fit and ready for the new season

that doesnt' look like happening now, so what choice do they have if they want to actually guarantee themselves a game of football next month

[Benny The Ball]

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

You have a point on 5.12 but wouldn't Quantuma's decision to use WM be justified if it was more cost effective and quicker to use lawyers that were right up to speed on the case and had all the relevant expertise? I assume WM would have considered the 'conflict of interest' issue.

If it is the case that Ken Anderson borrowed several million pounds from Eddie Davies to try to keep BWFC in business whilst a longer term solution was sought and the Eddie Davies Trust now want their money back, why would it be wrong for Ken Anderson to rely on the security for the loans just like any other secured lender would?

Chris there's an awful lot of Law firms out there with the relevant expertise 

The Issue here is that one lawyer is wearing two hats - one on behalf of Ken Anderson and one on behalf of the creditors of Bolton Whites Hotel a subsidiary within the Bolton Wanderers group structure

What happens when a decision has to be made by that lawyer  that on the one hand is to the benefit of the Football group as a whole and to the detriment of KA as an individual ( or vice versa ) 

Whose best interests will that Lawyer act in ? 

That is the issue and to avoid such issues altogether a different firm should have been appointed 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Benny The Ball

[Chris Custodiet]

34 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

Chris there an awful lot of Law firms out there with the relevant expertise 

The Issue here is that one lawyer is wearing two hats - one on behalf of Ken Anderson and one on behalf of the creditors of Bolton Whites Hotel a subsidiary within the Bolton Wanderers group structure

What happens when a decision has to be made by that lawyer  that on the one hand is to the benefit of the Football group as a whole and to the detriment of KA as an individual ( or vice versa ) 

Whose best interests will that Lawyer act in ? 

That is the issue and to avoid such issues altogether a different firm should have been appointed 

 

I've always taken conflicts of interest issues very seriously (more seriously than most in my experience) and do take your point. When we get to see Rubin's statement I'll look to see if BWFC's administrators have paid anything to the lawyers acting for the ED Trust.

I'm not taking sides on this. I just want to see the full picture and at the moment we don't have it.

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Chris Custodiet