It's happening. 

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17405193.bolton-wanderers-close-to-takeover-from-uk-based-consortium/

Thank fuck

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

Lesser of two evils, he gets paid either way, but one way is a lot more intrusive than the other.

No chance at all ken will accept your bidders offer if that the last resort in doing a straight sale and stopping liquidation being noticed tomorrow? I know it’s not as much as he wants but better than nothing and not have an liquidation order on his hands?

or has he accepted somehow elses offer as you said in his statement today? Why hasn’t it gone through if he’s accepted it?

Thanks Howard!

Just now, Jcookie said:

No chance at all ken will accept your bidders offer if that the last resort in doing a straight sale and stopping liquidation being noticed tomorrow? I know it’s not as much as he wants but better than nothing and not have an liquidation order on his hands?

or has he accepted somehow elses offer as you said in his statement today? Why hasn’t it gone through if he’s accepted it?

Thanks Howard!

Ken wants the Bassini deal, until that’s an impossibility nobody is even close.

2 minutes ago, Casino said:

Ken is Bolton wanderers, surely?

I was thinking that, I only mention it because she represented Bolton before Ken was in the picture.

Not that it means much but my point is more that - does Hillary care if she is essentially the mouthpiece of a corrupt Ken Anderson that could make her look bad... Does she have a choice?

Probably none of that matters because as you say, she is representing Bolton who are owned by Ken...

I am sure she will have a say with Ken though and therefore offer her advice on tomorrow's proceedings to him. If she is, in her head, representing Bolton, she might advise Ken differently to if she was, in her head, representing Ken.

Is it her job to make Ken money or her job to keep Bolton alive? Or her job to just do whatever Ken tells her to do?

So if Bassini did a Maxwell and fell off a boat, all would be well....

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

Ken wants the Bassini deal, until that’s an impossibility nobody is even close.

Aye, I thought that! But Bassini gone so quiet now! If he really had the cash and wanted to buy the club surely it would of done it by now. smells like he can’t get it done! Maybe why kens dropped the terms because he seen that Bassini dosent have the funds...

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

So if Bassini did a Maxwell and fell off a boat, all would be well....

Yes 

Don’t discount Benny’s guys though 

2 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

So if Bassini did a Maxwell and fell off a boat, all would be well....

Or even buried by somebody...

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

Yes 

Don’t discount Benny’s guys though 

Are Benny’s guys Gaspard or different? 

Did this get asked or answered? 

1 minute ago, Jcookie said:

Aye, I thought that! But Bassini gone so quiet now! If he really had the cash and wanted to buy the club surely it would of done it by now. smells like he can’t get it done! Maybe why kens dropped the terms because he seen that Bassini dosent have the funds...

KA dropping his terms would be to attract a new bidder, if that’s the case then they have a max 7 day period, is anybody going to commit the funds to due diligence under such a short time frame? 

Just now, JJ10 said:

Are Benny’s guys Gaspard or different? 

Did this get asked or answered? 

It was asked but not answered yet

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

KA dropping his terms would be to attract a new bidder, if that’s the case then they have a max 7 day period, is anybody going to commit the funds to due diligence under such a short time frame? 

Bassini falls away(which guessing may have happened or would of completed by now) .. he tempts no new bidders tonight .. so deal on bennys groups or yours on the court steps 🤷🏻‍♂️🤞

11 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

The hearing was held in chamber to stop it being recorded by the media or public. It is only reported by the chamber notary and even then it is with names redacted. You would need to know the court in which the chamber sat to gain access and that would be under an FOI request.

That seems a very strange decision by the Judge not to allow reporting in this age of court openess for a 'run of the mill' request by Ken for an adjournment.  Under the  FOI there's nothing to stop you from telling us which court it took place in?

Howard, 

In a brief summary what’s the best possible way this plays out for you guys from here on in? Starting from tomorrow I.e. adjournment.. 1 week or 2?  Bassini fails, take back shares. Etc etc. 

2 minutes ago, Jcookie said:

Bassini falls away(which guessing may have happened or would of completed by now) .. he tempts no new bidders tonight .. so deal on bennys groups or yours on the court steps 🤷🏻‍♂️🤞

Unlikely 

3 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

Unlikely 

Thanks Howard

3 minutes ago, Barnstoneworth White said:

That seems a very strange decision by the Judge not to allow reporting in this age of court openess for a 'run of the mill' request by Ken for an adjournment.  Under the  FOI there's nothing to stop you from telling us which court it took place in?

Most cases under NDA are requested to be held in private chambers, especially if it can materially affect the value or outcome of an ongoing transaction or public concern.

FOI being freedom of information act, and that doesn’t unfortunately cover me being able to release information to you. 

I might also suggest your reasons are somewhat nefarious and you are simply one of many posters here who seek to discredit 

5 minutes ago, JJ10 said:

Howard, 

In a brief summary what’s the best possible way this plays out for you guys from here on in? Starting from tomorrow I.e. adjournment.. 1 week or 2?  Bassini fails, take back shares. Etc etc. 

Look, if they are able to obtain the business then great, if they can’t then so be it. 

There is no desperation to acquire, so it plays out how it plays out. 

4 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

Most cases under NDA are requested to be held in private chambers, especially if it can materially affect the value or outcome of an ongoing transaction or public concern.

FOI being freedom of information act, and that doesn’t unfortunately cover me being able to release information to you. 

I might also suggest your reasons are somewhat nefarious and you are simply one of many posters here who seek to discredit 

Asking questions doesn't mean seeking to discredit you or your integrity. Whether it's him, me or anyone else for that matter. We're all here because we want updates on what might happen. Asking questions because something doesn't make sense or doesn't appear to be the full story isn't attacking you. 

I'd go as far as saying most of us are fairly happy with your updates, gives us something to look forward to and is somewhat interesting at least. 

Edited April 2, 20197 yr by SilentBob

Just now, SilentBob said:

Asking questions doesn't mean seeking to discredit you or your integrity. Whether it's him, me or anyone else for that matter. We're all here because we want updates on what might happen. Asking questions because something doesn't make sense or doesn't appear to be the full story isn't attacking you. 

Is the question relevant to the current position? Is the question about which court relevant to the current position? 

2 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

Is the question relevant to the current position? Is the question about which court relevant to the current position? 

He simply asked which court it was in and why it wasn't reported. That doesn't automatically mean he doesn't believe you. It means he wants more information about the situation. Whether or not he does or doesn't believe what you're saying is different. My point is that any questions don't instantly mean someone is trying to discredit you. 

Edited April 2, 20197 yr by SilentBob

Google how long a freedom of information request takes. 

Probably more than a week, move on. 

STOP ASKING HOWARD THE SAME FUCKING QUESTIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR FAAAHHHUUUUCCCKKKSSSS SAKE

1 minute ago, SilentBob said:

He simply asked which court it was in and why it wasn't reported. That doesn't automatically mean he doesn't believe you. It means he wants more information about the situation. Whether or not he does or doesn't believe what you're saying is different. My point is that any questions don't instantly mean someone is trying to discredit you. 

Quite right, I'm establishing the facts, the fact that you Howard have to question everyone who questions you leaves me with questions.

Nobody's asked him/her about their confidence levels for a while

On a completely random note, do Judges ever get offered backhanders?