It's happening. 

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

Thank fuck

6 hours ago, Roger_Dubuis said:

No, because nobody other than you cares

I can live with it if no-one's bothered whether the chairman of the ST was confused or just trying to mislead his audience. Confused seems favourite but I think its always useful to look for alternative explanations and corroboration of the facts.

Anyway according to the documents Deano signed off and filed at Companies House, Sports Shield BWFC Ltd hadn't spent any of his one pound investment, hadn't bought any shares, hadn't sold any shares, hadn't borrowed any money, hadn't lent any money, hadn't received any interest, hadn't paid any interest (or paid any fees). In fact, it hadn't done any of the things he confirmed it had done when he signed off the Burnden Leisure and BWFC accounts.

The gullible and easily led might think nothing of that, but what about the rest of WW followers?

50 minutes ago, Casino said:

How many are on the board these days?

 

There are six according to the ST website. 

Sorry for ignorance but I'm in darkest Fife. I know I its announced an agreement is settled for the helmet wearing dick from Watford to buy slippery Ken out. Is it a done deal? No loose ends or due diligence pish?

 

13 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Basran and Ken agreed a deal. Basran then pulled out in due diligence. Perhaps ken should have forced him? As for Gaspard - a company fronting South Africans who have been in before but never been able to get past the starting line. Why would that have been any better?

 

Evidence for this, and the reasons behind it?

Gaspard - Had the backing of a couple of reasonable posters on here who had knowledge of the bid, and had a number of Bolton fans involved in the deal. Why would that have been better than Bassini? Well none of those said to be involved...

- Had previously been banned from involvement in a football club having been found guilty of dishonesty and misconduct

- Had been in charge of a football club where they put seemingly little to no money in and instead took on loans secured against future transfer fees and league payments

- Have been accused of borrowing money in the name of a club, which never made it into the club

- Have a clear pattern of behaviour marking them out as a complete fantastist

There are wolves in sheeps clothing (which any new owner could be) and then a wolf in wolf clothing, turning up at the gate with mint sauce and being welcomed in under the misguided belief that the only possible option is to hope that he isn't what he very, very obviously is.

15 minutes ago, jazza said:

Sorry for ignorance but I'm in darkest Fife. I know I its announced an agreement is settled for the helmet wearing dick from Watford to buy slippery Ken out. Is it a done deal? No loose ends or due diligence pish?

 

 Not ratified by the EFL, I’m not convinced it will. 

That's my thought too. Cheers mounts. I wouldn't ratify him either

22 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Evidence for this, and the reasons behind it?

Gaspard - Had the backing of a couple of reasonable posters on here who had knowledge of the bid, and had a number of Bolton fans involved in the deal. Why would that have been better than Bassini? Well none of those said to be involved...

- Had previously been banned from involvement in a football club having been found guilty of dishonesty and misconduct

- Had been in charge of a football club where they put seemingly little to no money in and instead took on loans secured against future transfer fees and league payments

- Have been accused of borrowing money in the name of a club, which never made it into the club

- Have a clear pattern of behaviour marking them out as a complete fantastist

There are wolves in sheeps clothing (which any new owner could be) and then a wolf in wolf clothing, turning up at the gate with mint sauce and being welcomed in under the misguided belief that the only possible option is to hope that he isn't what he very, very obviously is.

Maybe he stopped being so diligent once the tennis balls came out.

Just a thought like

39 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Evidence for this, and the reasons behind it?

Gaspard - Had the backing of a couple of reasonable posters on here who had knowledge of the bid, and had a number of Bolton fans involved in the deal. Why would that have been better than Bassini? Well none of those said to be involved...

- Had previously been banned from involvement in a football club having been found guilty of dishonesty and misconduct

- Had been in charge of a football club where they put seemingly little to no money in and instead took on loans secured against future transfer fees and league payments

- Have been accused of borrowing money in the name of a club, which never made it into the club

- Have a clear pattern of behaviour marking them out as a complete fantastist

There are wolves in sheeps clothing (which any new owner could be) and then a wolf in wolf clothing, turning up at the gate with mint sauce and being welcomed in under the misguided belief that the only possible option is to hope that he isn't what he very, very obviously is.

It is my belief that every fully wired up bidder believes the business is an utter basket case and doesn't have a chance unless it goes into admin

I'm hoping against hope bassini is backed by some lunatic billionaire, otherwise it's admin at some point

1 hour ago, Casino said:

It is my belief that every fully wired up bidder believes the business is an utter basket case and doesn't have a chance unless it goes into admin

I'm hoping against hope bassini is backed by some lunatic billionaire, otherwise it's admin at some point

What have we learned today - Administration.

(Spoiler alert - no jokes or deep meanings in this one - just plain old boring stuff)

I don't really know where we stand on Administration?

What do we know?
- Someone has to put us into it
- Somebody has to pay the running costs whilst we are in it.
- Someone has to pay to meet the EFL's criteria to come out of it.

Who can put us in it?
- According to Rigby at the ST, just Davies estate and HMRC but that's clearly wrong.
- The owner (Anderson still is I presume) can, and according to Howard,
- So too can outstanding creditors such as Warburton, James and/or substitutes to the two outstanding winders HMRC and the one against the hotel.

What does it cost to be in Admin?
- Well how long is a piece of string?  It obviously depends on the length of time the club is in Admin - it could be days, it could be months, several months!
- Rigby stated it would cost around £750k (but he also said that was not including wages).
- Howard says it would be around £1m per month for about 3 months.

What does it cost to come out of Admin?
- Howard tells us that the EFL rules and regs requires all secured creditors to be paid in full (so that's James, Warburton and Anderson) and everyone else a minimum of 25% - people like HMRC, the Town Hall, Heathcote (if they already haven't been paid?), etc, etc.  Howard believed it to be around £20m (iirc?).

Why would people NOT put us in Admin?
- Well people on the winders such as HMRC want a fixed one off amount (£1.2m) so there's no point in them pushing for Admin if the costs to do so would be more to them than simply getting their full amount owed to them back from liquidation.
- A logical argument also could be made for James and Warburton as per the HMRC point above - but they could also turn their money owed into putting equity into the club itself - and thus reduce the cost of coming out of Admin by up to those amounts (James £5.5m, Warburton £2.5m).  Whether they would do so is another matter and even if they did would whoever is buying the club from Admin still have enough to cover all the other outstanding liabilities as well ongoing wages and showing proof to the EFL to fund next season (I have in my mind from somewhere that new owners had to provide proof of funds to keep the club going for three seasons - but maybe I've dreamt that up?)
- Eddie's estate, on the basis that to put the club in Admin they have to reclaim ownership of it from the outstanding debt on the loan secured against Anderson's ownership shares.  Taking the club back also means taking on ALL THE DEBTS as well.  Hardly likely to do that unless they had an immediate buyer, which leads me on to my next point...

Company Voluntary Agreement's (CVA or Pre Pack Administration).
- This is basically when someone gets all the creditors agreement for the company to go into Admin and immediately come out of it again as everybody has agreed to what they will settle for as per the penny in the pound owed to them.  Howard explained that the EFL no longer allows that.  I think this is where the rule about secured creditors receiving 100% owed to them and a minimum of 25% to unsecured comes from.
- If however CVA CAN  meet those targets then I guess going down the CVA route would be permissible with the EFL?

Other Odds and Ends
- Hillary at the last Winder pleaded that if necessary the judge put the club in Admin rather than liquidate it?  I can only assume that implied Anderson (as owner) would fund the club whilst in Admin - which considering all the non payments mounting up, seemed a bit contradictory - so something more technical that I don't understand must be available to the judge to act on?
- Ken claimed he was going to put the club into Admin so Team Basran could buy it - just before Bassini did!  How convenient and all that.  Was it true, could he have done so?  I guess so.  He was (is?) still the owner and if someone went down the CVA path and the EFL is happy with it, then why not?
- Even if Bassini does become the owner I guess there's nothing stopping him putting the club into Admin - even on the day EFL gave him permission!  It would look very bad though!
- Does Ken want anybody looking into his dealings if Admin/Liquidation happens as Howard implied a lot of 'creative' accountancy at work shall we say!  Not to say there has though or that anything at all is untoward under his ownership.

I'm non the wiser myself after putting all this down in words as to if we possibly would/would not go into Admin anytime soon but at least I've listed things as best as I can as to the options there are, as I understand them to be.

Hope people find it of some use.

 

Edited April 22, 20197 yr by Sluffy
grammar errors

8 hours ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Evidence for this, and the reasons behind it?

Gaspard - Had the backing of a couple of reasonable posters on here who had knowledge of the bid, and had a number of Bolton fans involved in the deal. Why would that have been better than Bassini? Well none of those said to be involved...

- Had previously been banned from involvement in a football club having been found guilty of dishonesty and misconduct

- Had been in charge of a football club where they put seemingly little to no money in and instead took on loans secured against future transfer fees and league payments

- Have been accused of borrowing money in the name of a club, which never made it into the club

- Have a clear pattern of behaviour marking them out as a complete fantastist

There are wolves in sheeps clothing (which any new owner could be) and then a wolf in wolf clothing, turning up at the gate with mint sauce and being welcomed in under the misguided belief that the only possible option is to hope that he isn't what he very, very obviously is.

Evidence? Ken announced via the official club site a deal was agreed and Basran retweeted it. Then in due diligence Basran pulled out. This was widely documented. 

Gaspard never produced proof of funds. That’s what Iles says. And he’s no patsy for Ken is he?

Canes move this thread to “Behind the stands - geeks corner”

and start a new one called - Takeover (less than firty words).

Please.

Fucking hard reading all this to catch up then we you do it’s the same as the last 100 pages 

Admin will be a lot cheaper when players contracts are up, is that end of June? Not sure if we can limp on that long though. 

Edited April 22, 20197 yr by Mounts Kipper

How can this bloke prove he has enough money if he does not know the level of debt ? 

6 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Admin will be a lot cheaper when players contracts are up, is that end of June? Not sure if we can limp on that long though. 

Cheaper but disastrous for next season. You have to be in for a minimum of 28 days. Trust get first option. Then once dale agreed go through league change of control process, then be under embargo for 2 years and start on -12.

So best case is mid July with 7 contracted players  and a new owner at stage Bassini is at now. On -12 in league one. What sort of a season follows that? 

21 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Admin will be a lot cheaper when players contracts are up, is that end of June? Not sure if we can limp on that long though. 

That’s when they end - but there’s still an obligation to pay for 3 months if they don’t get a club.

Just losing blind Ben and Ameobi will save a million + I reckon

24 minutes ago, Biggish Dave said:

That’s when they end - but there’s still an obligation to pay for 3 months if they don’t get a club.

Really? 

So, a 3 year contract becomes 3 years 3 months if they were so bad no other bugger wants em? 

I never knew that and it's bloody shocked me 😮

I’ve seen that’s the case recently - Nixon I think(I know, I know). It’s about time the power moved back to the clubs instead of greedy players/agents

1 hour ago, Ani said:

How can this bloke prove he has enough money if he does not know the level of debt ? 

Hopefully because he’s somehow the front for someone who’s loaded. I live in hope. 

This thread is now bollocks. There's so much misleading shite from people regurgitating posts they've half understood. 

23 hours ago, Biggish Dave said:

I’ve seen that’s the case recently - Nixon I think(I know, I know). It’s about time the power moved back to the clubs instead of greedy players/agents

Is that something that they request in the contract?

If so the clubs should say fuck off.

Edited April 23, 20197 yr by Tonge moor green jacket

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Is that something that they request in the contract?

If so the club's should say fuck off.

It used to be one month (as of 2 years ago), and it was standard across all contracts. I think the theory was that it gave a player 1 month to sort a contract with a new club as they shouldn’t have been doing this whilst under contract with their current club (although I presume most in reality will already be doing it). When did it change to three months?

17 minutes ago, irvtheswerv said:

This thread is now bollocks. There's so much misleading shite from people regurgitating posts they've half understood. 

It’s taken you 505 pages to come to this conclusion. Bit slow on the uptake usually takes a few pages for folk to realise 

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

It used to be one month (as of 2 years ago), and it was standard across all contracts. I think the theory was that it gave a player 1 month to sort a contract with a new club as they shouldn’t have been doing this whilst under contract with their current club (although I presume most in reality will already be doing it). When did it change to three months?

If memory serves me correct I thought players could talk to others clubs once they were in the final 6 months of contract so I don't understand why they should be paid for an extra 3 months

1 hour ago, 1969 said:

If memory serves me correct I thought players could talk to others clubs once they were in the final 6 months of contract so I don't understand why they should be paid for an extra 3 months

6 months from end of contract if club is in a different country. 1 month if in same country I think. 

I believe Bassini was sat with a couple of members of the Trust today

If, and I believe it’s still an if, he completes then is this a good sign?

Plenty of misgivings from me and others on here about the Trust, but this can’t be a bad thing can it?