Benny The Ball

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

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

I am wondering how much longer this whole sorry saga can go on for Just listened to that Gordon Taylor interview on Talk Sport and there were doubts expressed that we will have a team on the pitch on the opening day of the season I was hoping that following yesterdays publicity that the 2 administrators would see sense and sort this matter out between themselves - ideally in the next 48 hours , because what is clear is that FV need the hotel to fund their plans. However I have just noticed that the Hotel administrator has filed online yesterday at companies house ( Bolton Whites Hotel Limited ) Statement of administrator's proposal This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days. If that statement ( which cannot yet be viewed ) reaffirms the timescales in his press release We have commenced a marketing and sales process of the hotel and have appointed agents to manage the process, which has received significant interest from potential purchasers. We expect the process to run for four to six weeks and do not propose to comment on progress during this time, as discussions will be confidential. then I am struggling to see a way forward Surely the hotel administrator must realise without the football club being able to fulfil its fixtures there will be no hotel Something needs to happen and it needs to happen soon

Why ? If FV have presented to the administrator an unconditional offer to purchase the stadium upon FV acquiring the club for £x million from a blue chip Insurance company or similar , am pretty certain they would accept that as part of the required funding Does not necessarily mean £25 million in a bank account with instant access - at least I dont think it does

I dont think FV funding plan is reliant on the hotel business in the sense that it provides an income for the football club . I think Damocles was on the right lines a couple of days ago. My hunch is that FV have lined up a sale of the football stadium at £12 - £15 million with an institutional investor and that capital sum will be released on completion. That cash will be critical to FV - it will represent 50- 60% of the £25 million they will have proven as available funding to the administrator. They have probably lined up a tenant for the hotel already and agreed with the stadium buyers a long term rent the football club will pay - on the face of it everyone is happy . . But then the hotel administrator puts a spanner in the works because he gets indications that higher offers for the hotel are out there - more than FV want to pay, which leaves everything up in the air because the institutional investor will rightly only do a deal on the entire stadium and not just part of it , so without the hotel FV wont be able to fund the club.

At one point he did , however ED trustees were entitled to have detailed financial information under terms of charge they had over club , and one way or another relevant Information was available to potential buyers

Don't forget Bassini , Gaspard and FV had already had access to the relevant data as they had already been in discussions with KA so did not necessarily need to pay for what they already knew

I am anticipating that the hotel will most likely be sold to Football Ventures along with ( and at the same time as ) the football club. The Hotel was owed £985k ( Note 12 Trade Debtors ) in the accounts as at 30 June 2017 by " Group Undertakings " in other words the football club. This will have most likely risen substantially since that date as the hotel has paid out staff wages for the football club and will have also allowed use of the hotel by staff from the football club which wont have been paid for. If at the point of entering administration that inter company debt stood at lets say £1.6 million in the hotels books , then because the administration has been split into two , effectively that £1.6 million is an unsecured creditor in the football clubs books and the club will pay the hotel a reported 25p in the £ along with the other unsecured creditors . Therefore the hotel will over time recoup circa £400k from the football club . The Hotel is reputed to have been valued at circa £4.5 - £6 million If the hotel is sold to Football Ventures then most likely most of the cash received by the administrator will go to pay off KA with the balance going to the unsecured creditors. Then most likely James will as you suggest write off most of what he is currently owed and put in place a new charge That's how I see it proceeding - and to be honest I struggle to see it being sold separately , because under such circumstances where it is sold separately neither James ( wanting ownership of the club and the hotel ) or Anderson ( wanting his money back ) would be satisfied with the outcome , unless someone comes along and pays £10 million plus for it , which is well above what its valued at.

You do have rather a lot to say for yourself .............. whats your issue ?

Don't know If anyone else is aware of this - apologies if its been mentioned elsewhere , but I thought this might be an Interesting topic to discuss given our recent experiences as fans The MP for Chester Christian Matheson ( Labour ) is bringing in a bill to try to Independently regulate Football clubs Below is what he said at Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesday ( printed in full from Hansard ) it is rather lengthy - but worth a read Bolton were mentioned several times ( highlighted ) Not quite sure how it proceeds going forward - but the bill is being presented in Parliament - have not tracked down a draft of it as yet One point I would make is that I can think of a couple of posters on here for whom this role of Independent regulator would be their dream job ... as they are looking for someone who would be given " the powers to undertake independent and forensic audits of clubs’ directors and financial activities, where sufficient concern has been expressed about the management of the club " Wonder what the FA / EFL will do in response ? ********************************************************************************************************************************************** Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) 1.03 pm Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent regulator of football clubs; and for connected purposes. On 9 March this year, supporters of Blackpool football club went to watch a home match for the first time after a four-year boycott of home fixtures. The reason for their protest was the mismanagement, as they saw it, of the club by its owners, Owen and Karl Oyston. It was more than simply mismanagement, though: the fans believed that the Oystons had been bleeding the club dry, not just failing to invest but taking large sums of money out. Indeed, a High Court judgment found that the Oystons had “illegitimately stripped” £26.77 million from the club. Previously, as Nick Harris reported in the Daily Mail, Mr Oyston senior was the highest paid person in English football in the 2010-11 season, when Blackpool were in the premier league, receiving an eye-watering £11 million, with only Wayne Rooney reportedly coming close to similar remuneration, yet there was nothing the supporters could do within the existing structures of the game to force a change of ownership and stop their club being ransacked. Unable to prevent the mismanagement by the Oystons, the supporters had to take things into their own hands, and eventually launched a boycott of home games to deny Blackpool’s owners their money. The supporters received support from fans of other clubs and from the national supporters’ organisations, but little support from the football authorities. To get to the point at which the club is now being sold, it has taken four years of their not doing the one thing that binds them together and defines them: watching the football team they love. If this was a one-off, I would feel sorry for Blackpool fans, pleased that they have almost won their campaign, and move on, but it is not a one-off. Coventry City fans are in an even worse situation. Who can forget the 1987 cup final, with players such as Micky Gynn, Brian Kilcline, Keith Houchen and Steve Ogrizovic, and manager John Sillett dancing on the Wembley turf with the FA cup? This once proud club is being driven into the ground by its owners, Sisu, which is an investment firm based offshore—its ultimate owners are not clear. Coventry City have had to find a ground-sharing option some 18 miles from Coventry, at Birmingham City, as the legal wrangle continues between Sisu, Wasps rugby union football club and Coventry City Council. Sisu is answerable to no one; indeed, according to the Coventry Telegraph, it made no public statement between 2016 and March this year. Further up the M6, Bolton Wanderers, another of the great names in English football, is now in administration, and is so badly managed that staff have not been paid and other clubs are assisting with payroll and even providing food banks to support employees. I recall going to the old Burnden Park in 1994 to watch Everton play against Bolton in the FA cup, and meeting the great Nat Lofthouse. How can the club of the Lion of Vienna now be resorting to food banks as it is run into the ground? This is not a recent phenomenon. In 1997, the owner of Brighton & Hove Albion closed the old Goldstone Ground, without making any alternative provision, so that he could sell off the site and make millions from property development. My own hometown club, formerly Chester City football club, was driven into the ground by a succession of owners who used it either as a tax-dodging scheme or in one case—it has been alleged—as a front for laundering ill-gotten gains from criminal activity. The club dissolved and was reborn as a fan-owned club, which has been challenging at times, but those challenges have never included deliberately running the club down and syphoning off cash. The concern for supporters is that they are only ever one bad owner away from these types of problems, and that they have nowhere to turn for help. The FA and the leagues have an owners and directors test, but this might be relevant only in the case of, for example, previous criminal convictions. A group like Sisu can turn up at Coventry and bleed the club dry, with no intention of investing in its future, and the FA can do nothing. I have given just a few examples of clubs with question marks over the way they are being or have been run. We can currently add to that list Notts County, Gateshead and Bury—last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) petitioned the High Court on behalf of supporters in his constituency—and in the recent past Portsmouth, Hartlepool, Charlton Athletic and more. There are too many to be isolated cases, which suggests there is a broader problem that needs to be addressed. When I served on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I raised this issue with Greg Clarke, the chairman of the FA and a decent man who I believe genuinely wants to do his best for football. I asked him whether there was nothing the FA could do about unscrupulous owners; Mr Clarke replied that it can look into the backgrounds of potential owners—he was referring to the owners and directors test—but cannot do anything about a person who is simply bad at running a football club. The FA has devolved such matters to the leagues, but the leagues are membership organisations, and any rules or regulations have to be voted in by their own members—those very same club owners. The worst sanction is a points deduction for going into administration, but that is hardly relevant in the cases I have described. Football needs independent regulation—that is, regulation independent of the owners, who have a vested interest. The making of rules or regulations about football clubs, and decisions on their application, should not be the task of the professional football clubs or the people who own and manage them. That regulation could and should be done by the Football Association, in the interests of the game as a whole. A regulatory body under the auspices of the FA, adequately funded and suitably staffed, with effective regulations and the power to enforce them, could restore faith in the running of the game. Of course, there are ways in which the owners and directors test can be improved, but it will never be foolproof. Not all bad owners start out bad. A regulator should be there to educate, advise and support. Punishment and sanctions should be the last resort. The good owners should have nothing to fear; they should benefit from reflective improvements throughout the game. This Bill would bring into being an independent regulator with the powers to undertake independent and forensic audits of clubs’ directors and financial activities, where sufficient concern has been expressed about the management of the club, to report to the FA with recommendations for action, to address any deliberate financial mismanagement, or, of course, to decide that there is no case for further action. There would be limits. I remember, for example, going to The Valley in November 1998 to watch Everton play Charlton. As I arrived there, I was horrified to learn that the then Everton chairman, Peter Johnson, had just sold our totemic striker Duncan Ferguson to Newcastle, behind the back of the manager. I wanted Johnson out, but a bad decision such as that would not necessarily require independent scrutiny. I am concerned about consistent behaviour to run a club into the ground. Similarly, I recall one previous owner of Chester City, an American, who sacked the manager and started to pick the team himself. That is bad management, as referred to by Greg Clarke, but it is not destructive management, using the club for nefarious means, and is unlikely on its own to fall under the scope of the regulator described in the Bill. Ideally, it would be the Football Association that would undertake these activities, but in the absence of action an independent regulator is needed so that the scandals of Brighton, Blackpool, Coventry and Chester City are a thing of the past and supporters have somewhere to turn to in their desperation. Perhaps now the Football Association will take the opportunity to consider bringing forward proposals of its own to address this problem. I urge it to consider the suggestions of the Football Supporters’ Association, which I have consulted closely in preparing the Bill. Although the directors of a football club may be the legal owners, they are surely only the custodians on behalf of the whole family of supporters of each club. If they are unable to act in the best interests of the club and the team, and are seen to be acting in their own interests to the detriment of the club, that cannot be allowed. If I do not like Tesco, I can go to Sainsbury’s. If I am still unhappy, I can go to Asda, Waitrose, Aldi or Lidl, but we cannot do that with a football team. Football supporters have a profound sense of loyalty, identity and belonging to a club, which cannot be transferred at the first sign of trouble. In my case, I am the fourth generation of my family to support Everton, I was born into that tradition—you cannot manufacture it. Most supporters would say exactly the same of their club. Football is a great unifier, bringing the nation together—this applies equally to each of our four home nations—in great moments of unity, as well as being something that we can talk about to complete strangers and bond over in the pub or by the coffee machine. That is why, when we have so many other critical issues to consider in this House, this Bill is important. Football matters to so many people. At a time when our country is so divided, football, in common with all sports but perhaps more than any other sport, can bring our country together again. When fans such as those of Blackpool, Coventry or Bolton Wanderers are treated as abysmally as they have been, while their owners bleed the clubs dry, there has to be a mechanism for giving them an outlet to redress their grievances, because at the moment they have nowhere to go. I would prefer the Football Association to do this, and hope that it will do so, but if it cannot we must support the supporters with a tough and independent regulator. The Bill does that. I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Christian Matheson, Damian Collins, Mr Marcus Jones, Mr Jim Cunningham, Colleen Fletcher, Gordon Marsden, Jo Stevens, Alison McGovern, Justin Madders, Ian Mearns, Chi Onwurah and Chris Heaton-Harris present the Bill. Christian Matheson accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 411).

Hello Howard - its really good to see that you are still here - your presence has been missed by many The only point I am trying to make and I really am not the pedantic type - is this - Why would the EFL make any comment at all ? and why is the absence of any such comment a cause for concern ? When Simon Sadler and Henry Teh were recently announced as the new Blackpool owners and Investors ( with David Rubin and Co handling the process ) was there a statement from the EFL ? Seriously - did they make any sort of statement at all ? If so I have missed it When David Rubin and co were appointed as administrators to BWFC they said ( 22 May ) "we are advising all those with a serious interest to provide information concurrently to the EFL in respect of their Owners' and Directors' Test in order to satisfy those demands" I would have thought it reasonable to assume when David Rubin and Co announce they have identified preferred new owners on 14 th June - " Administrators announced on Thursday that they had identified a preferred new owner for the League One club." that at the very least the administrators had ensured that the preferred owners had satisfied EFL requirements ? I just think what we are witnessing is an understandable clamour for the matter to be resolved immediately , when personal matters - such as a bereavement may have caused a short term delay and whilst at the same time the separation out of the hotel from the main football club acquisition deal may also present opportunities for mischief making by those clinging to their last vestiges of "power "

Shaun Harvey wont be saying anything he has retired

I dont believe the wheels have ground to a halt Things are taking longer than anticipated - but things are still moving

I suspect not . Both Iles and Nixon have ( late last week ) alluded to the fact that the delay is nothing to do with the deal per se

Its Interesting that when pressed again on this tweet Nixon has replied Some things are not for the public domain. So in his own roundabout way he is telling us the deal is still on and proceeding So what could it be that has to be kept from us ? Having until now thought the delay was due to the situation with the Hotel I am starting to wonder If someone crucial to getting the deal concluded has suffered a family bereavement or maybe a serious Illness has been diagnosed Lets hope its none of the above - maybe its just on hold pending the serious fraud office announcing an arrest

My guess is it may well be to do with the hotel That is now being sold separately and will complicate matters Apart from identifying what specific parts of the stadium structure are and are not being sold as part of this purchase by Football Ventures , access rights , shared kitchens , emergency exits from one to the other and ensuring utilities are separated will all need to be dealt with.

Correct My understanding is that Emerson Group ( Middlebrook Retail Park Owners ) would like to build further shopping units ( One of which would be perfect for a flagship B&M Bargains store ) and the shopping centre becomes effectively 4 sided - but cannot do so as would build on their existing car parks leaving insufficient car parking which obviously reduces footfall Solution turn some of BWFC car parks into Multi Storey car parks with access straight into the retail park With improvements to road network - particularly Horwich Link road - good chance it will get approved by planners Therefore Football Club in powerful negotiating position owning valuable asset

Here you go - I posted this a month or so ago ... He has managed 2 other clubs at championship level and his record is Hull City in 2006/07 he won 4 games in 21 and was sacked with them 23rd in the League . Two years later in 2008/09 he moves up from assistant manager at Charlton to manager and in 28 games in charge they also won 4 games and were relegated With us in 2017/18 and 2018/19 has won 18 in 88 In total - 137 championship matches won 26 of those I cannot see any new owner keeping him ... whoever takes over will bring in their own man , someone who buys into the new owners vision and someone capable in time of moving up the divisions with the squad they assemble

Sorry Just seen someone has already posted on the money laundering case ...

Heard about this on friday but could not find anything in the press Football legend Jay-Jay Okocha in Aberdeen court on money laundering charges https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/court/football-legend-jay-jay-okocha-in-aberdeen-court-on-money-laundering-charges/ and to make matters worse for him - he is wanted in Nigeria for Tax Evasion Austin Okocha: Lagos high court re-issues arrest warrant for former Super Eagles captain Read more: https://www.legit.ng/1240687-austin-okocha-lagos-high-court-issues-arrest-warrant-super-eagles-captain.html

If anyone is Interested the full odds are as follows BET365 - League 1 Odds to Win Promotion 2019-2020 Ranking Team Odds Finish 2018-2019 1 Sunderland 11-8 5 2 Ipswich 2 Relegated from Championship 3 Portsmouth 5-2 4 4 Rotherham 10-3 Relegated from Championship 5 Peterborough 9-2 7 6 Doncaster 5 6 7 Fleetwood 5 11 8 Lincoln 6 Promoted from League 2 9 Oxford 6 12 10 Burton 6 9 11 Coventry 13-2 8 12 MK Dons 13-2 Promoted from League 2 13 Blackpool 8 10 14 Bristol Rovers 10 15 15 Gillingham 10 13 16 Shrewsbury 12 18 17 Rochdale 12 16 18 AFC Wimbledon 12 20 19 Tranmere 14 Promoted from League 2 20 Southend 14 19 21 Wycombe 14 17 22 Accrington 14 14 23 Bolton 20 Relegated from Championship 24 Bury 25 Promoted from League 2

☺️ BURY @25-1

Might give that a miss ... Put another way we are 23rd favourites out of 24 to go up !! Interestingly and presumably because of the unknown points deduction we are not yet listed in the relegation betting !!

Are you reading this back to front ? Don't know where you are getting your figures from but that's nor right - it was completely the opposite 72/3 started at home to Bournemouth 7k ended v Brentford 21k , basically sub 10k first half of season , high teens 2nd half with 33k v Blackburn biggest league crowd Industrial action was 73/4

The administrators reports should still make interesting reading as and when he issues them over the coming months given that the last publicly available accounts are to June 2017 and the reality is no one fully knows what has gone on since then . It might help us all get a better understanding as to what has actually happened I dont know how you can say " It is quite clear there is no illegality " , because I dont think anyone has to hand at this point in time all the facts to make that call The good thing is that If the administrator finds anything at all - be it KA taking monies when the club was technically insolvent , or any breaches of his duties as a director ( and he was the ONLY director ) then he will report to the Insolvency Service , who will consider that report and may well investigate further and depending on the outcome that could possibly see KA once again being banned from being a director. That though may be 2-3 years away