Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Take Over


Kane57

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Well it's clear that there is two Administrations for a reason, it's just trying to figure out what that reason is.

Must be to protect the position of Anderson and/or James/PBP no doubt.

We've all been assuming it was to protect Anderson's position - but what if it was more about James's/PBP's instead.

Clearly it would have been better for all if there was only one Administrator for everything but next best would if there was a 'friendly' (shall we say) Administrator for the hotel and James/PBP was equally in a position to appoint an Administrator - so why not do so?

Yes he was a Director in FV at the time but they had walked away from a deal for the club pre-Admin and James could always have resigned and had a proxy in his place as a Director/owner, if there were obvious future conflicts of interests arising.

Also what actual position did Anderson actually have to protect?  

On the face of it his secured creditor status did not amount to anything much - James first call with his secured £5.5m seemed to take the entire value of the hotel at market value at the time.  Was he certain he could manipulate some sort of a bidding war to get the price up?

If not then why take on the costs of Administration then?

He did though, so why was that?  He wasn't getting any more from the club Administrator so I guess he was doing it as a spoiler to stop the FV plan of buying the hotel and leverage a potential pay out to go away - which seemed too be exactly what happened at one stage in this sorry saga.

We come back again as to why didn't James/PBP simply prevent this by appointing the Administrator than letting Ken?

Maybe his motive was that if he did and he obtained the hotel for less than the £5.5m secured - then he (PBP) has lost money.

Which would seemed to have been the case under just one Administrator for everything

Maybe the thinking was that Ken's aims of pushing up the value of the hotel beyond the £5.5m were to the advantage of James/PBP as well, and if Anderson took on the Administration costs so much the better.

Perhaps James/PBP wanted from all of this was just simply to get their money back and was on board with FV as one way of doing it with a development of the land and property (being a Director of FV as only cost him £2 so far, plus a few costs I would imagine) and at the same time happy enough for the hotel to be sold to whoever for £5.5m plus (whilst not funding Admin).

Of course just pure speculation on my part but unless someone can shoot it down, then as good as reason as any I suggest?

Thanks I understand your reasoning 

However I do think the reason for 2 administrators is entirely to protect Andersons position 

Am not certain by any means that ED Trustees and MJ saw it coming when KA put the Hotel into a separate arrangement 

Apart from the Hotel itself , it has given leverage to the disputed amounts claimed by Anderson as being due to him - the separate administrators dont even to appear to agree on the Inter Company balances between the two entities 

Anyway the point I wanted to make about the Marc Iles article is this 

Lots of people know of the issues between ED trustees - MJ - Appleton and FV because BWFC leaks like a sieve and If you ask enough people its amazing what confidential texts / emails and the likes are out there and widely shared 

Therefore its easy for Iles to report on issues on this side of the fence 

He does not report on whats going on with the Hotel - Walker Morris KA and Quantuma because in relative terms that is bomb proof and very little Information has leaked into the public domain from that side of the fence - am sure its just as interesting if not more so . 

The situation is probably best summed up when Jason Elliot ( with Appletons blessing ) of Cowgills  announced to the world the deal was done via Twitter - how unprofessional of Rubens was that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

I haven't got round to watching the full Bassini video, only the first 30 minutes or so. Bassini went at length to discuss that he made a better offer to creditors, at 100p in the £. What he didn't mention was the date that this offer was made. I assume it was made after the date in which the administrators stated they needed best and final offers, but like I say, the date of his offer was not said. I still don't fully understand why anyone would offer 100p in the £, when its widely known that FV's offer gets nowhere near that level.

Effectively, he was stating that Macron claimed they had never been shown Bassini's offer. Again though, if this offer was after the cut off point, then I would imagine that is why. It does still amaze me that FV's preferred bidders status has not yet been revoked. It must have something to do with the £1m that FV injected. What interested me more was the mention of Keir Gordon, and Bassini's claim that he was also approached to pay this £1m, and that this would be key in securing the club. If we take that on face value, it would appear that whoever paid that, had a one way ticket to acquiring the club. I can understand why someone would not want to pay that outright, given the risk involved.

Could someone clarify what todays judge decision being released is in regards to? It's the first I have seen or heard about it.

 

In the eyes of the administrators there are two options a) Creditors sort it out and agree to FV proposal or b) liquidation.

There isn't anyone else able to complete a deal that they are aware of. 

Out of interest who does Bassini claim approached who about paying the £1M - non refundable deposit? Its not clear in your post. 

Edited by bwfcfan5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

I haven't got round to watching the full Bassini video, only the first 30 minutes or so. Bassini went at length to discuss that he made a better offer to creditors, at 100p in the £. What he didn't mention was the date that this offer was made. I assume it was made after the date in which the administrators stated they needed best and final offers, but like I say, the date of his offer was not said. I still don't fully understand why anyone would offer 100p in the £, when its widely known that FV's offer gets nowhere near that level.

Effectively, he was stating that Macron claimed they had never been shown Bassini's offer. Again though, if this offer was after the cut off point, then I would imagine that is why. It does still amaze me that FV's preferred bidders status has not yet been revoked. It must have something to do with the £1m that FV injected. What interested me more was the mention of Keir Gordon, and Bassini's claim that he was also approached to pay this £1m, and that this would be key in securing the club. If we take that on face value, it would appear that whoever paid that, had a one way ticket to acquiring the club. I can understand why someone would not want to pay that outright, given the risk involved.

Could someone clarify what the court case today is settling? It's the first I have seen or heard about it.

 

Bassini's statement was rambling, punctuated by paper shuffling and interruptions from the gathering. But the gist of it was that Bassini (backed by Sullivan) was willing to take on the whole of the debt before the administrators were appointed and that he had a binding agreement with Ken Anderson to take over Burnden Leisure (and its subsidiaries).

i.e. administration and 12 point deduction were unnecessary  and he will be challenging them. Good luck with that!

At the time the  offer was made he didn't know about the hotel and was blown away when he saw it. Might make no money but the whole set up would look  impressive to someone who didn't know about it.

Today's court case? Sorry I can't help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Exactly - the rights and wrongs of it are thus - the admins ran a process and found the best deal. The secured creditors don't like it. But also don't seemingly have another way of saving the business - if they did they'd have offered it up by now. 

So you're in the mess of FV being the only option but the secured creditors not liking said option.

I'd say the more worrying aspect of the comment piece yesterday is that perhaps the issue is not so much about money and more about a long standing dispute between creditors and Mike James. I really hope this isn't a case of egos preventing the football club being saved!

I thought unsecured creditors had agreed a deal, and the secured creditors were guaranteed 100%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I thought unsecured creditors had agreed a deal, and the secured creditors were guaranteed 100%. 

Unsecured creditors in effect get very little say. Secured creditors unless paid off immediately and in full have to agree to the deal being offered to them.

Note that both main secured credtiors on club side dispute the values owed to them determined by the administrators forensic auditors. So in reality their consent is required for any deal to progress. 

 

The vote is misrepresented - its merely creditors approving the admins plans to try and sell the assets to maintain the business. That's it. They all agreed to that. But the settlement with FV with secured creditors is another matter. 

Edited by bwfcfan5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Unsecured creditors in effect get very little say. Secured creditors unless paid off immediately and in full have to agree to the deal being offered to them.

Note that both main secured credtiors on club side dispute the values owed to them determined by the administrators forensic auditors. So in reality their consent is required for any deal to progress. 

They’d better get there heads together or it’ll be liquidation, wasn’t that what KA preferred option at one stage? Could that still be best outcome for him? If so it’ll never get agreed. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

In the eyes of the administrators there are two options a) Creditors sort it out and agree to FV proposal or b) liquidation.

There isn't anyone else able to complete a deal that they are aware of. 

Out of interest who does Bassini claim approached who about paying the £1M - non refundable deposit? Its not clear in your post. 

I don't to name drop the individual I have in my mind, in case it's the incorrect name. Bassini mentions it at some point after about 15-20mins in.  Sorry to be pedantic, I just wouldn't want to mention a name and it turn out not to be that individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

They’d better get there heads together or it’ll be liquidation, wasn’t that what KA preferred option at one stage? Could that still be best outcome for him? If so it’ll never get agreed. 

I'm unconvinced Ken is the biggest issue here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthew1234 said:

I don't to name drop the individual I have in my mind, in case it's the incorrect name. Bassini mentions it at some point after about 15-20mins in.  Sorry to be pedantic, I just wouldn't want to mention a name and it turn out not to be that individual.

Can I clarify - Bassini claims someone approached him to pay the £1M deposit - is that right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

Correct.

Now you and I know who that person was. So perhaps now it is clear the reason why this is such a mess? 

I will bet the same person is the reason Bassini launched his injunction all of a sudden and out of the blue!

Edited by bwfcfan5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
15 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Now you and I know who that person was. So perhaps now it is clear the reason why this is such a mess? 

I will bet the same person is the reason Bassini launched his injunction all of a sudden and out of the blue!

Who is it?

And don't tell me I have to watch the full video to find out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Who is it?

And don't tell me I have to watch the full video to find out

In fairness I wasn't there haven't seen it and I'm guessing. But I'm fairly sure the name was in Matthew's original post. Be good if someone could substantiate. 

Edited by bwfcfan5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
3 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

giphy.gif

 

1 hour ago, Matthew1234 said:

What interested me more was the mention of Keir Gordon, and Bassini's claim that he was also approached to pay this £1m, and that this would be key in securing the club.

 

I think?

Edited by Cheese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Now you and I know who that person was. So perhaps now it is clear the reason why this is such a mess? 

I will bet the same person is the reason Bassini launched his injunction all of a sudden and out of the blue!

 

10 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

In fairness I wasn't there haven't seen it and I'm guessing. But I'm fairly sure the name was in Matthew's original post. Be good if someone could substantiate. 

 

Please, stop. Stop now. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, leadfrog1 said:

fuck me hes just accused them of a bribe, lying and blackmail 

No way would he say those things in public if there was no truth in it.

He either has something here or he is a complete fruitcake....toss that coin.

Edited by ROVERS F.C.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ROVERS F.C. said:

No way would he say those things in public if there was no truth in it.

He either has something here or he is a complete fruitcake....toss that coin.

Don't bother with the coin.......he's currants & raisins short of a fruitcake.

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.