Take Over

[Johnnyrotten]

7 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

We might not have a club to support next season. The manager is a secondary issue  at best. 

I agree completely. I keep pretending its not happening and that a football related discussion is relevant. As long as we exist I don't care, although I will cancel my season ticket for first time in 35 years if Parky is still here.

[Jol_BWFC]

Can someone remind me of Howard’s statement of / guess at /  lie about the financial difference for Ken between liquidation and having his shares taken for nothing? How much are we talking?

I can imagine an unscrupulous individual forcing liquidation if it saves him (or makes him) a few million quid. 

However, would a multimillionaire (which he is) who works in the world of football want to live with the shit that he and his family will have to face if he was to destroy a founder member of the football league - all out of spite? 

He would be ostracised if it turns out that he had an offer on the table to walk away with club’s debts paid in full, but caused a football club / community focus to fold because the offer didn’t give him a multi-million pound golden handshake.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Jol_BWFC

[Chris Custodiet]

On 06/04/2019 at 13:07, Benny The Ball said:

Can I just make one small point here - other than Howards saying so what other verifiable evidence is there that ED loaned KA this £3 million ?

I just think once again this discussion board gets drawn into the minutiae when at this point until its verified its not really that worthy of that much attention - its purely speculation 

You are the one who supposedly saw through Howard first ? But are clinging to this as absolute gospel

I only ask because If I had loaned someone £3 million and then they had come along asking for another £5 million , I would not have then taken security on £5 million only  I would have secured all £8 million 

And please dont try and draw me into a discussion on this I have other things to do right now 

Just thought I would make the point because as others say its all so very tedious 

It is my understanding that the additional £3m is reflected in accounts that have  been seen by interested parties but which are not yet in the public domain.

You are correct in that if you were lending another £5m you would also want to secure an earlier £3m and it seems entirely possible that the charge dated 27 September 2018 and registered on the Companies House file was intended to do exactly that.

No-one would have had any inkling about the earlier £3m advanced by Moonshift without Howard's intervention but it also begs the question why this amount was not secured at an earlier date and whether, in all the circumstances, it achieves the intended result.

Howard has demonstrated an impressive knowledge of insolvency and by claiming it is unsecured has, in effect, asserted that it does not. That may or may not be correct but I suggest it is hardly minutiae but a crucial factor for the Anderson's and one which may bear heavily on how KA approaches the final stages of this unhappy saga.

[Mantra]

33 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

It is my understanding that the additional £3m is reflected in accounts that have  been seen by interested parties but which are not yet in the public domain.

You are correct in that if you were lending another £5m you would also want to secure an earlier £3m and it seems entirely possible that the charge dated 27 September 2018 and registered on the Companies House file was intended to do exactly that.

No-one would have had any inkling about the earlier £3m advanced by Moonshift without Howard's intervention but it also begs the question why this amount was not secured at an earlier date and whether, in all the circumstances, it achieves the intended result.

Howard has demonstrated an impressive knowledge of insolvency and by claiming it is unsecured has, in effect, asserted that it does not. That may or may not be correct but I suggest it is hardly minutiae but a crucial factor for the Anderson's and one which may bear heavily on how KA approaches the final stages of this unhappy saga.

What do you think will happen, out of interest?

[DirtySanchez]

1 hour ago, Jol_BWFC said:

Can someone remind me of Howard’s statement of / guess at /  lie about the financial difference for Ken between liquidation and having his shares taken for nothing? How much are we talking?

I can imagine an unscrupulous individual forcing liquidation if it saves him (or makes him) a few million quid. 

However, would a multimillionaire (which he is) who works in the world of football want to live with the shit that he and his family will have to face if he was to destroy a founder member of the football league - all out of spite? 

He would be ostracised if it turns out that he had an offer on the table to walk away with club’s debts paid in full, but caused a football club / community focus to fold because the offer didn’t give him a multi-million pound golden handshake.

Would the fact we were founder members make a difference to people unconnected with BWFC in terms of how he treated us? 

If he was doing it at say wolves my opinion of him wouldn't change if he was doing it to Fulham 

[Chris Custodiet]

4 minutes ago, Mantra said:

What do you think will happen, out of interest?

Impossible for me to say but I don't think we'll have long to wait. I'd hope it would get settled tomorrow. Its gone on far too long already.

[Mantra]

5 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Impossible for me to say but I don't think we'll have long to wait. I'd hope it would get settled tomorrow. Its gone on far too long already.

Impossible for everyone but Ken to say I think. I hope you're right in thinking that we don't have long to wait. Would you rather see Bassini take it tomorrow though, or take a chance on H's mob being successful in securing the shares?

Also, not sure if I'm just being thick here, but could you clarify what you mean by "Howard has demonstrated an impressive knowledge of insolvency and by claiming it is unsecured has, in effect, asserted that it does not. That may or may not be correct but I suggest it is hardly minutiae but a crucial factor for the Anderson's and one which may bear heavily on how KA approaches the final stages of this unhappy saga."

Are you saying that H claiming it's unsecured says to you that it might be secured or have I misunderstood. And in what way do you think it bears heavily on how Ken approaches the saga, one way or another?

Apologies, but finances and figures aren't my strong point so you might have to spell it out for me.

[Jol_BWFC]

28 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Would the fact we were founder members make a difference to people unconnected with BWFC in terms of how he treated us? 

If he was doing it at say wolves my opinion of him wouldn't change if he was doing it to Fulham 

They are both prem teams though. Compared to, say, Rotherham or (as soon to be league one) Shrewsbury or Fleetwood, I think Bolton would affect the footballing world more.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, Jol_BWFC said:

Can someone remind me of Howard’s statement of / guess at /  lie about the financial difference for Ken between liquidation and having his shares taken for nothing? How much are we talking?

I can imagine an unscrupulous individual forcing liquidation if it saves him (or makes him) a few million quid. 

However, would a multimillionaire (which he is) who works in the world of football want to live with the shit that he and his family will have to face if he was to destroy a founder member of the football league - all out of spite? 

He would be ostracised if it turns out that he had an offer on the table to walk away with club’s debts paid in full, but caused a football club / community focus to fold because the offer didn’t give him a multi-million pound golden handshake.

There's also the alleged dodgy business practice that Howard spoke about. He also said ken wouldn't want to have an investigation into his behaviour.

IF they're any merits into this and the dark horse lot, then liquidation may not be his preference.

Why hasn't he done it already for example?

[BIGBW]

35 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Would the fact we were founder members make a difference to people unconnected with BWFC in terms of how he treated us? 

If he was doing it at say wolves my opinion of him wouldn't change if he was doing it to Fulham 

Don't think the founding members aspect makes a difference, but I think it's in his interest to try and find some sort of amicable solution. If he wants to continue investing in football and partnering with those in the game, he'll need to consider how he can improve his reputation. He's pissed off a lot of fellow owners and business people -- no one wants to deal with a complete unscrupulous shark.  

[Spider]

Being founder members of something means fuck all.

look what happened to Duke & Duke in Trading Places.

No room for sentiment in business.

 

[darrener]

This will have to be sorted this week, there is no way the club can continue until May like this. My guess is that we will go to the wall, that and that only is the reason I will be at the game on Tuesday because I really think it could be the last time I see them play at the stadium. Dramatic I know but I can just see Ken pulling the plug after Tuesday there is no way this goes to may 8th. 

[Sweep]

2 minutes ago, Spider said:

Being founder members of something means fuck all.

 

 

Correct, for some, football only started in 1992, when the premier league was formed.

If bet your average football fan under 30 years old wouldn't even know we are founder members, or indeed be able to mention more than about four or five of them

[DirtySanchez]

1 hour ago, Jol_BWFC said:

They are both prem teams though. Compared to, say, Rotherham or (as soon to be league one) Shrewsbury or Fleetwood, I think Bolton would affect the footballing world more.

Accrington Stanley then 

Or Derby 

I bet quite a lot of fans don't even know who the founder members were 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Correct, for some, football only started in 1992, when the premier league was formed.

If bet your average football fan under 30 years old wouldn't even know we are founder members, or indeed be able to mention more than about four or five of them

Well Utd, ovs

And Liverpool

And Citeh

Chelsea, undoubtedly

 

[snowball]

1 minute ago, DirtySanchez said:

Accrington Stanley then 

Or Derby 

I bet quite a lot of fans don't even know who the founder members were 

No it will just be a footnote in our obituary and most wont even know what it means. Wankers

Anyway going to boro for same reason. Wonder if mick brown still thinks we are all drama queens? Happy to be actually but bad feeling about all this, can the cancer of anderson be removed without killing the patient?

[Mantra]

13 minutes ago, darrener said:

This will have to be sorted this week, there is no way the club can continue until May like this. My guess is that we will go to the wall, that and that only is the reason I will be at the game on Tuesday because I really think it could be the last time I see them play at the stadium. Dramatic I know but I can just see Ken pulling the plug after Tuesday there is no way this goes to may 8th. 

Assuming it might be our last game because Ken could voluntarily liquidate before the shares are called in?

I don't think H's mob would risk recalling the shares if they think Ken would do that. Could be wrong.

[Jol_BWFC]

14 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Accrington Stanley then 

Or Derby 

I bet quite a lot of fans don't even know who the founder members were 

I bet most fans don’t, but the press do and the fans read the press. Only 3 or 4 paragraphs into these articles and it’s mentioned.

I appreciate though that it makes a big difference that our recent history also involves the Premiership and European adventures etc that other clubs don’t.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1102699/Bolton-Wanderers-liquidation-administration-High-Court-hearing-Ken-Anderson-BWFC/amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-6882573/amp/Bolton-given-extra-time-settle-debts-avoid-liquidation.html

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Jol_BWFC

[wakey]

20 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Accrington Stanley then 

Or Derby 

I bet quite a lot of fans don't even know who the founder members were 

pedant alert ...

Accrington Stanley weren't founder members. Accrington were. They went bust donkey's years ago. As, many years later, did the original Accrington Stanley.

Come to think of it, Accrington's leading the way in former league clubs going bust.

[Tommy Banks]

Sooner or later a club of our size will go to the wall. The way football finances are structured, if you haven't got a willing benefactor you will eventually end up where we are. I really hope I'm wrong but I fear the worst. I've been watching Bolton for over 60 years and for the first time I really fear for the future.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 minutes ago, Biganddaft said:

You are right, I have loved Bolton Wanderers since 1967, but we don't have a devine right to survive, but that said the greed of the premier league and the football league have a lot to answer for greedy selfish bastards

The clubs (perhaps owners) ultimately are the ones to blame.

Spending way beyond their means, despite money levels in the game being so high.

Ridiculous really.

[Sweep]

1 hour ago, boltondiver said:

Well Utd, ovs

And Liverpool

And Citeh

Chelsea, undoubtedly

 

Just asked my 17 year old nephew who the 12 founder members were.... He said "as you're asking, then clearly Bolton are" he then rattled through a list of all the "big" clubs. Only getting Villa and Everton correct.

I told him the full list, he said..... And I must admit I laughed..... "it's a real shame they're all really crap now"

 

For the record, he's a Leicester City fan, and started going with his dad the season before they won the league. The cunt 😀

 

 

 

[darrener]

1 hour ago, Mantra said:

Assuming it might be our last game because Ken could voluntarily liquidate before the shares are called in?

I don't think H's mob would risk recalling the shares if they think Ken would do that. Could be wrong.

Just a feeling, this has been going on forever. Something will have to give this week the club is running on empty. No way we can carry on like this for much longer, people need paying who's going to do that? 

[Chris Custodiet]

2 hours ago, Mantra said:

Impossible for everyone but Ken to say I think. I hope you're right in thinking that we don't have long to wait. Would you rather see Bassini take it tomorrow though, or take a chance on H's mob being successful in securing the shares?

Also, not sure if I'm just being thick here, but could you clarify what you mean by "Howard has demonstrated an impressive knowledge of insolvency and by claiming it is unsecured has, in effect, asserted that it does not. That may or may not be correct but I suggest it is hardly minutiae but a crucial factor for the Anderson's and one which may bear heavily on how KA approaches the final stages of this unhappy saga."

Are you saying that H claiming it's unsecured says to you that it might be secured or have I misunderstood. And in what way do you think it bears heavily on how Ken approaches the saga, one way or another?

Apologies, but finances and figures aren't my strong point so you might have to spell it out for me.

If its unsecured as Howard claimed, Ken stands to lose a lot of money. Howard's had access to all the info and expert advice but isn't independent so you can't be certain.

Ken will have had advice too but his luck ran out a year ago and if there's a safer option for him, I think he'd be unwise not to take it  when push comes to shove in the next two days.

[Mantra]

1 minute ago, Chris Custodiet said:

If its unsecured as Howard claimed, Ken stands to lose a lot of money. Howard's had access to all the info and expert advice but isn't independent so you can't be certain.

Ken will have had advice too but his luck ran out a year ago and if there's a safer option for him, I think he'd be unwise not to take it  when push comes to shove in the next two days.

So if it’s unsecured and he liquidated Ken could lose a lot of money but if, contrary to what Howards said, it’s secured and he liquidated then he is fine.

So a safer option for him could be liquidation if he’s secured but if he’s unsecured he will want a deal.