It's happening. 

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

Thank fuck

10 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Aye. Its something signed. And my understanding was last time they used the fact due diligence was under way to stall....

Just as a side note here, I have been in court rooms where a director has been required to telephone the ‘interested party’ to confirm said interest.

4 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I’m thinking it’s a bit of a non event today and will be just an adjournment.

Agree

6 minutes ago, Traf said:

Why would he have to repay it?
If it has been given to him legitimately through the business, surely there's no recall?

A salary is legitimate, taking bonuses or drawing a loan whilst the club is failing to meet its obligations is not legitimate.

Just now, Spider said:

Agree

If Paul Aldridge is going then that’ll be the plan.

2 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

Just as a side note here, I have been in court rooms where a director has been required to telephone the ‘interested party’ to confirm said interest.

Interesting. Do you think that there is a reasonable chance of adjournment today? Everyone who knows about these things I know but know nothing about BWFC say NO - not unless there is some very advanced deal we don't know about. But you know more than them?

9 minutes ago, Traf said:

Why would he have to repay it?
If it has been given to him legitimately through the business, surely there's no recall?

agreed. he would only have to repay as a director if he was "fucking" the club.

3 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

If Paul Aldridge is going then that’ll be the plan.

How far into negotiations with a potential new owner have we to be in order that the judge would grant an adjournment? 

Edited March 20, 20197 yr by Mounts Kipper

Just now, bwfcfan5 said:

Interesting. Do you think that there is a reasonable chance of adjournment today? Everyone who knows about these things I know but know nothing about BWFC say NO - not unless there is some very advanced deal we don't know about. But you know more than them?

Don’t forget, an adjournment only suits the agenda of Ken Anderson. 

The other group would rather the liquidation clock started so as to force Ken’s hand. 

Whoever they try and propose as the mystery bidder, it’ll be a reach. My guess is that they’ll try and claim the Basran deal isn’t dead.

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

Don’t forget, an adjournment only suits the agenda of Ken Anderson. 

The other group would rather the liquidation clock started so as to force Ken’s hand. 

Whoever they try and propose as the mystery bidder, it’ll be a reach. My guess is that they’ll try and claim the Basran deal isn’t dead.

I agree that really this needs bringing to a head...but its a question of whether Ken has something up his sleeve....

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

How far into negotiations with a potential new owner have we to be in order that the judge would grant an adjournment? 

They’d have to have proof of funds, maybe even have the acquisition amount held by a solicitor. 

Would need to be an easily traceable individual or group and would’ve needed to have had 48 hours with the books, minimum.

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

They’d have to have proof of funds, maybe even have the acquisition amount held by a solicitor. 

Would need to be an easily traceable individual or group and would’ve needed to have had 48 hours with the books, minimum.

That's what I was told. Effectively be in due diligence. Due diligence is seen as a critical point because before that a court regards it as "just initial discussions with no sense of viability". 

6 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

A salary is legitimate, taking bonuses or drawing a loan whilst the club is failing to meet its obligations is not legitimate.

What then is the position about KA securing the £5 million loan with a charge ,  if its subsequently proven the business was insolvent at the time the charge was put in place ? How would that unravel ?  Wont unsecured creditors challenge it ? 

Just to confirm, even though a judge can put the business in to liquidation today, the 5 working day pay/appeal process means that the ‘liquidation event’ referred to by the EFL as reason to ‘withdraw registration’ would not have legally occurred.

5 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

They’d have to have proof of funds, maybe even have the acquisition amount held by a solicitor. 

Would need to be an easily traceable individual or group and would’ve needed to have had 48 hours with the books, minimum.

I’d think that would make an adjournment less likely. Surely after only terminating talks with Basran he’s not that far down the line with other interested parties.

Just now, Benny The Ball said:

What then is the position about KA securing the £5 million loan with a charge ,  if its subsequently proven the business was insolvent at the time the charge was put in place ? How would that unravel ?  Wont unsecured creditors challenge it ? 

There’s no interest on the loan so he hasn’t/won’t profit, plus that loan is back to back charged with Moonshift so unlikely an issue. 

What may be an issue: 

Bonuses 

Payments to suppliers linked to KA/LA 

Factoring of invoices made from ICI to BWFC in respect of return of loaned funds.

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I’d think that would make an adjournment less likely. Surely after only terminating talks with Basran he’s not that far down the line with other interested parties.

To my knowledge he is not, that being said, KA retains an odd network of wealthy cronies who I’m sure would help him out.

6 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

That's what I was told. Effectively be in due diligence. Due diligence is seen as a critical point because before that a court regards it as "just initial discussions with no sense of viability". 

If Basran paid £500k to view the books (something I refute) then I imagine Ken/PA will need to show that the other party has made the same transaction. 

What I would also add is that if there was another party bidding directly then MJ wouldn’t have been able to join the FV board.

We might only get in there mid afternoon. The judge will be looking to get away and indulge in whatever perverted fantasies high court judges do these says.  Plus issuing an order against a founder member of the football league and a sizeable community asset would be pretty controversial and high profile.  Easier for him to kick it to the kerb & let some other mug worry about it. 

Got adjournment written all over it this

7 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

There’s no interest on the loan so he hasn’t/won’t profit, plus that loan is back to back charged with Moonshift so unlikely an issue. 

What may be an issue: 

Bonuses 

Payments to suppliers linked to KA/LA 

Factoring of invoices made from ICI to BWFC in respect of return of loaned funds.

If anything comes out of the woodwork showing that KA has operated in a way that takes normal business ethics beyond the red line so to speak , given his previous ban , would he just face a fine / punishment fitting for whatever misdemeanor is uncovered , or would previous be taken into account and could he then  be banned outright ?  

I don’t think they’re paid to be sentimental 

1 minute ago, Benny The Ball said:

If anything comes out of the woodwork showing that KA has operated in a way that takes normal business ethics beyond the red line so to speak , given his previous ban , would he just face a fine / punishment fitting for whatever misdemeanor is uncovered , or would previous be taken into account and could he then  be banned outright ?  

It’s looked at in isolation but the rules are pretty clear that if knowingly wrongful trading has occurred then a director can be made personally liable for the debts and face a barring/prosecution.

2 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

It’s looked at in isolation but the rules are pretty clear that if knowingly wrongful trading has occurred then a director can be made personally liable for the debts and face a barring/prosecution.

How far down the line will the bidder dealing with the Davies family take this Howard? The 27th? 

4 minutes ago, darrener said:

How far down the line will the bidder dealing with the Davies family take this Howard? The 27th? 

It’s not up to them, they need Ken to relinquish the shares, they’ve done all they can do now. 

The minute he agrees they will move to relieve the debts.

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

It’s not up to them, they need Ken to relinquish the shares, they’ve done all they can do now. 

The minute he agrees they will move to relieve the debts.

When is the 14 day window up when he is forced to relinquish them?

2 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

When is the 14 day window up when he is forced to relinquish them?

I believe it’ll be around 3/4

Edited March 20, 20197 yr by Howardroark
A