Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Take Over


Kane57

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
1 minute ago, boltondiver said:

2 things;

probably right

But, so what? What difference does it make?

It means Anderson is seen a completely different light

That million quid 'float' could've meant no cash flow issues and wages always paid and no winders (arf)

Could

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Casino said:

Whatever

Im pretty clear Holdsworth fleeced bwfc for far more than Anderson's consultancy fees

What happened to the money he borrowed of moonshift? Ken stated he settled the blu marble debt for substantially less than the 5 million. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
6 minutes ago, bwfc2003 said:

If he settled BM at 4m  does that mean he left 1m in club?

At the time he said he sorted a couple of other things out

But, like I said, he owes moonshift 5 million, so, irrelevant unless I'm missing something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Basran deal had supposedly hit the buffers last weekend, then Kenyons name gets thrown into the ring yesterday - less than 24 hrs later Ken releases a statement saying he's hopeful a deal will be done by the end of the week. Nixon reckons the takeover has had twists + turns. If i was a gambling man i'd  put my money on Kenyon and his consortium stealing in and buying us at the 11th hour.

Just guesswork admittedly,  a bit like Iles does - but he gets paid for it! 😁 

Edited by Burndens Bogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Casino said:

At the time he said he sorted a couple of other things out

But, like I said, he owes moonshift 5 million, so, irrelevant unless I'm missing something

if the charge to the club is 5 million for Ken paying the blue marble loan, new buyer settles all outstanding creditors means Ken gets 5 million back while only paying blu marble 4 milllion. Leaves him 1 million profit. Maybe accountants on here can verify thats possible. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Ken didn't pay blumarble 

Bwfc did

 

Eddie lent Ken 5 million

Ken lent bwfc 5 million

BWFC owes Ken 5 million

Ken owes Eddie 5 million

 

The fact it's so obvious can only mean I'm missing something

Even if Ken pocketed a million, he still owes Eddie the 5

 

There may be interest, but I've kept it at 5 so you can keep up and spend more time inventing theories

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

if the charge to the club is 5 million for Ken paying the blue marble loan, new buyer settles all outstanding creditors means Ken gets 5 million back while only paying blu marble 4 milllion. Leaves him 1 million profit. Maybe accountants on here can verify thats possible. 

We don't know the precise detail but any assumption that Ken profited from this arrangement seems more likely to be based on inherent mistrust rather than any reasoned explanation. I'm sure you'll find that Eddie was willing to help the club out, yet again, but not to the extent of his family being further disavantaged to the benefit of KA.

It seems that Blumarble only ever advanced £4million but took security for up to £5million presumably because of their concerns and to cover potential interest and charges in the event of default on repayment.

Holdsworth tried to pass on interest charges at 24% (a default rate) which KA disputed, finally reaching an agreement with BM that they would get £300,000. Because they weren't paid out in accordance with this deal BM sought to tear up the agreement but finally settled on a figure of £400K interest.

At the moment it looks like Fildraw advanced £5million which, if it was the case, would leave c.£600k availalble to help Burnden Leisure meet other obligations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I know it because its all in the public domain but you have to look for it. Ken is likely to have been required as part of the settlement to undertake not to speak about it. He's probably been very unhappy about that but has stuck to it apart from the vague reference today. Have you not noticed the frequent complaints Ken made about Holdsworth before the settlement and how they dried up subsequently?

 

Can you have an NDA about information in the public domain? What'd be the point?

Just seems odd to me that Ken, a man who once used his column to call a local journalist an alcoholic, wouldn't heap as much shit as he can on Deano.

He even said himself that he was paid a consultancy fee/promotion bonus, rather than make clear or even allude to the apparent fact that this was another act of benevolence to save the club from Holdsworth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Can you have an NDA about information in the public domain? What'd be the point?

Just seems odd to me that Ken, a man who once used his column to call a local journalist an alcoholic, wouldn't heap as much shit as he can on Deano.

He even said himself that he was paid a consultancy fee/promotion bonus, rather than make clear or even allude to the apparent fact that this was another act of benevolence to save the club from Holdsworth.

Dean Holdsworth and his associate Michael Collins had taken out a £5m loan from BluMarble through Sportshield with debentures and also gave charges effectively over everything the club and its associated businesses still owned. Although it has to be said that the club only actually received £4m of the £5m.

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2019/march/a-note-from-the-chairman/?fbclid=IwAR3bUWKH9Khe1U0AOaQj4wl9Wa-m2lJarThuy5_5sUfTXkqx0D1wWUeRraE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressively concise too.

Funnily enough Collins emerged from the shadows to make contact the other week. Hadn't heard from him since before the Deano takeover. 

Not really sure what he was hoping to achieve but was telling me there would be no takeover and that Ken wasn't to blame for any mess caused - claimed it to be solely down to 'Holdsworth's greed'.

His other point was that in place of a takeover would be a 'cash injection and restructure' instead. 

Strange guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Can you have an NDA about information in the public domain? What'd be the point?

Just seems odd to me that Ken, a man who once used his column to call a local journalist an alcoholic, wouldn't heap as much shit as he can on Deano.

He even said himself that he was paid a consultancy fee/promotion bonus, rather than make clear or even allude to the apparent fact that this was another act of benevolence to save the club from Holdsworth.

You can agree/be forced to agree not to comment on certain subjects. The fact as you say Ken is avoiding going like a bull at a gate for once could imply the deal is imminent and he is not rocking the boat as much as usual  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Casino said:

It means Anderson is seen a completely different light

That million quid 'float' could've meant no cash flow issues and wages always paid and no winders (arf)

Could

It was worse than that. If you cast your mind back, the court threw out the HMRC petition in 2016 on the basis of representations that the 'Sports Shield consortium' came up with £7.5million. In fact 'they' only came up with £4m all of it repayable within a couple of weeks, signing over 'the deeds to the ranch' and thereby precluding any other secured borrowing and Holdsworth drawing £250K to cover some vaguely described expenses. Not to mention, of course, Holdsworth drawing £250K p.a. to do a difficult job for which he had no relevant experience.

How much of that Ken Anderson knew before he took it on is conjecture but I would have thought he was experienced enough to have recognised most of the hurdles he would face on decision day minus one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

We don't know the precise detail but any assumption that Ken profited from this arrangement seems more likely to be based on inherent mistrust rather than any reasoned explanation. I'm sure you'll find that Eddie was willing to help the club out, yet again, but not to the extent of his family being further disavantaged to the benefit of KA.

It seems that Blumarble only ever advanced £4million but took security for up to £5million presumably because of their concerns and to cover potential interest and charges in the event of default on repayment.

Holdsworth tried to pass on interest charges at 24% (a default rate) which KA disputed, finally reaching an agreement with BM that they would get £300,000. Because they weren't paid out in accordance with this deal BM sought to tear up the agreement but finally settled on a figure of £400K interest.

At the moment it looks like Fildraw advanced £5million which, if it was the case, would leave c.£600k availalble to help Burnden Leisure meet other obligations.

There is no info to say ken made money on the blu marble repayment but equally there is no evidence the 600k was used to meet burnden leisure obligations as Ken seems to have paid no one, my guess is it’s in his inner circle bank account and staying there, while the new owner fronts up 5 million to meet his moonshift obligations. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, radcliffewhite1 said:

For the experts on here 

how much you reckon holdsworth has creamed? 

I refer you to my earlier answer:;

'Of course it was obvious that expenditure still exceeds income. Not quite as obvious though is that the small profit Ken refers to will be the result of Ken negotiating a £1million reduction in the SSBWFC/Blumarble interest charges, most of the net proceeds of the Madine sale being swallowed up in last season's operating deficit.

Ken doesn't mention the £472k it cost him to acquire Holdsworth's shares, Holdsworth's £250k p.a. salary, another £250K to pay Holdsworth's expenses, £50K compensation for loss of office plus legal fees and £150K paid to Quantuma to avoid foreclosure in 2017. Why has KA not mentioned these things? NDA possibly. Why has the BN barely mentioned them? Different question.'

I would use the word 'cost' rather than 'creamed.'

 e.g. The £150K would all be costs as would all the legal fees (including the club's undisclosed legal fees).What's more is that for Ken to find the £472K, he needed to draw £525K to cover tax and expenses. If the £525K had been paid to a UK company he would have to have drawn a good deal  more than that.

 

Edited by Chris Custodiet
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.