It's happening. 

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

Thank fuck

I shall bite, but only as a matter of factual correction:

In terms of administration: 

the secured creditor putting the club in to administration would be required to fund the administration until the administrator was able to put in place a plan to return the business to profitability. If this is not possible then the decision can still be taken to liquidate. Funding administration means meeting the costs of running the business (essentially the shortfall between incomings and outgoings). 

The issue with an administrator putting in place a plan to return the business to profitability is that this almost always involves a sale of the business to a new owner. Under EFL rules this owner has to ensure each creditor receives a minimum of 25% of the original debt. This means the minimum investment in to the club is £18M or so. 

Given that finding a buyer in administration is not guaranteed, you have to ask yourself why a secured creditor would take on the burden of financially supporting the club when they will receive 100% of their funds back in the event of a liquidation (the assets used as security are worth more than the outstanding loans). 

On Benny’s point regarding Iles’ report today about the buyer being ‘UK Based’, this is factually accurate. 

N.B I’m not ‘back’, simply continuing in my purpose to reassure in the face of false reports from Nixon and Iles.

Oh and a shout out to a ‘Mark Crowther’ I enjoy nothing more than being referred to as a ‘bell end’ by somebody who tweets my comments to journalists in the hope of seeming informed.

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

I shall bite, but only as a matter of factual correction:

In terms of administration: 

the secured creditor putting the club in to administration would be required to fund the administration until the administrator was able to put in place a plan to return the business to profitability. If this is not possible then the decision can still be taken to liquidate. Funding administration means meeting the costs of running the business (essentially the shortfall between incomings and outgoings). 

The issue with an administrator putting in place a plan to return the business to profitability is that this almost always involves a sale of the business to a new owner. Under EFL rules this owner has to ensure each creditor receives a minimum of 25% of the original debt. This means the minimum investment in to the club is £18M or so. 

Given that finding a buyer in administration is not guaranteed, you have to ask yourself why a secured creditor would take on the burden of financially supporting the club when they will receive 100% of their funds back in the event of a liquidation (the assets used as security are worth more than the outstanding loans). 

On Benny’s point regarding Iles’ report today about the buyer being ‘UK Based’, this is factually accurate. 

N.B I’m not ‘back’, simply continuing in my purpose to reassure in the face of false reports from Nixon and Iles.

Oh and a shout out to a ‘Mark Crowther’ I enjoy nothing more than being referred to as a ‘bell end’ by somebody who tweets my comments to journalists in the hope of seeming informed.

Welcome back H-dog!

Just now, Howardroark said:

I shall bite, but only as a matter of factual correction:

In terms of administration: 

the secured creditor putting the club in to administration would be required to fund the administration until the administrator was able to put in place a plan to return the business to profitability. If this is not possible then the decision can still be taken to liquidate. Funding administration means meeting the costs of running the business (essentially the shortfall between incomings and outgoings). 

The issue with an administrator putting in place a plan to return the business to profitability is that this almost always involves a sale of the business to a new owner. Under EFL rules this owner has to ensure each creditor receives a minimum of 25% of the original debt. This means the minimum investment in to the club is £18M or so. 

Given that finding a buyer in administration is not guaranteed, you have to ask yourself why a secured creditor would take on the burden of financially supporting the club when they will receive 100% of their funds back in the event of a liquidation (the assets used as security are worth more than the outstanding loans). 

On Benny’s point regarding Iles’ report today about the buyer being ‘UK Based’, this is factually accurate. 

N.B I’m not ‘back’, simply continuing in my purpose to reassure in the face of false reports from Nixon and Iles.

Oh and a shout out to a ‘Mark Crowther’ I enjoy nothing more than being referred to as a ‘bell end’ by somebody who tweets my comments to journalists in the hope of seeming informed.

Thanks howard 

Right H stick around. I’m sure custard will keep himself in check for the benefit of the forum as we all need to know what the fuck is going on. 

And like it or not you are the most ITK so sit back and stick around 

Welcome back Howard

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

I think you need to read Howards posts again.

He stated multiple times that he did not know who the 'dark horse' purchaser was.

He also explained clearly a couple of times that any secured debtor whose loan was in default could seek Administration but that they would be required to fund it and to have funds available to pay off all the secured debtors plus 25% of the total for all unsecured debtors.

I don't think Nixon's called anything right on this takeover so far, as he, so your guess is as good as mine if he's right this time.

 

Honestly I've read and re-read the forum twice. It's so hard to keep up with everything. I know he doesn't know who the buyer is, but he knows something, especially as he's just confirmed it's a UK buyer. But that's the first I can remember reading that from Howard. (could be wrong)

On your second point - thanks for the clarification. But I can't remember who the secured creditors are... Anyway that goes over my head somewhat, and I don't see us going into Admin, it's been ruled out. HMRC wouldn't want to do it, can't see Macron or anyone else fancying it. Maybe as an empty threat for their own gain?

Nixon seems pretty confident that the buyer has stakes in foreign clubs, which would make sense, as surely you can't have major stakes in 2 English clubs...

Also, thanks for clearing that up Howard.

UK buyer is correct then, should narrow it down. Too bad I have nowhere to start to narrow it.

Edited March 24, 20197 yr by Mantra

4 minutes ago, Mantra said:

Honestly I've read and re-read the forum twice. It's so hard to keep up with everything. I know he doesn't know who the buyer is, but he knows something, especially as he's just confirmed it's a UK buyer. But that's the first I can remember reading that from Howard. (could be wrong)

On your second point - thanks for the clarification. But I can't remember who the secured creditors are... Anyway that goes over my head somewhat, and I don't see us going into Admin, it's been ruled out. HMRC wouldn't want to do it, can't see Macron or anyone else fancying it. Maybe as an empty threat for their own gain?

Nixon seems pretty confident that the buyer is foreign, which would make sense, as surely you can't have major stakes in 2 English clubs...

Also, thanks for clearing that up Howard.

UK buyer is correct then, should narrow it down. Too bad I have nowhere to start to narrow it.

Depends what you class as ‘foreign’. 

Also worth noting that only directors with 30% or more ownership go through F&PP, so it’s possible that the individual with the football links may not actually be a controlling influence.

Edited March 24, 20197 yr by Howardroark
A

4 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

Depends what you class as ‘foreign’. 

Also worth noting that only directors with 30% or more ownership go through F&PP, so it’s possible that the individual with the football links may not actually be a controlling influence.

Howard, you tease. Unfortunately I only corrected "foreign" to " has stakes in foreign clubs" after you quoted my post.

Are you implying that it's someone who is from the UK but not England. Or maybe English-speaking but from overseas?

Or is this some Brexit joke? 👽

 

2 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Thoughts? It’s all fucking guesswork (including the non-financial journos), we’ve all got too much time on our hands and I wish my Chinese would fucking hurry up before I have to watch any more post-match analysis of the San Marino v Scotland game. 

Caught ten minutes of that and it immediately made me realise that however much I moan about Bolton it could be a helluva lot worse

Maybe Irish. The guy that has a stake in Celtic perhaps 

Just now, jmjhb said:

Maybe Irish. The guy that has a stake in Celtic perhaps 

Got a name?

I'm fairly sure its Ulker, fronted by Kenyon...

I mean I haven't been told this by a source or a man in the pub, but all signs point that way.

In court, it was mentioned that the buyer has a 'stake in a high level football club' - Ulker owns the naming rights to Fenerbache's stadium, and also owns a basketball club that recently merged with Fenerbache.

Nixon states today that the club(s) are foreign, which may be him guessing, but again points to Fenerbache.

Also, the buyer uses Walker Morris same as Anderson, and that is exactly who Kenyon/Ulker used to broker the deal at Newcastle...

Again, i'm guessing, but all signs point that way...

Dermot Desmond 

2 minutes ago, Mantra said:

Howard, you tease. Unfortunately I only corrected "foreign" to " has stakes in foreign clubs" after you quoted my post.

Are you implying that it's someone who is from the UK but not England. Or maybe English-speaking but from overseas?

Or is this some Brexit joke? 👽

 

A ‘UK based consortium’ is open to considerable interpretation on all 3 components.

Worth over two billion

Howard - do you think it is ulker? Or can you rule it out 

4 minutes ago, WestStandUpper said:

I'm fairly sure its Ulker, fronted by Kenyon...

I mean I haven't been told this by a source or a man in the pub, but all signs point that way.

In court, it was mentioned that the buyer has a 'stake in a high level football club' - Ulker owns the naming rights to Fenerbache's stadium, and also owns a basketball club that recently merged with Fenerbache.

Nixon states today that the club(s) are foreign, which may be him guessing, but again points to Fenerbache.

Also, the buyer uses Walker Morris same as Anderson, and that is exactly who Kenyon/Ulker used to broker the deal at Newcastle...

Again, i'm guessing, but all signs point that way...

Note, a stake of less than 10% in a domestic football club is allowed if it’s purely for investment purposes. 

A stake doesn’t mean owner or majority shareholder.

2 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

Note, a stake of less than 10% in a domestic football club is allowed if it’s purely for investment purposes. 

A stake doesn’t mean owner or majority shareholder.

But isn't the stake foreign, or is it a domestic club?

Can you confirm or deny Ulker?

4 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

A ‘UK based consortium’ is open to considerable interpretation on all 3 components.

I guess so. I just want the 3 April to hurry up. But realistically it could go to 10 April as it would take 7 days for a liquidator to be appointed, if we end up going down that road.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that and we get sold before the players' wages are due. But somehow I can't quite see it being that straightforward....

 

 

Apologies if this sounds a bit thick but does it now come down to Anderson choosing which bid is best for him? I mean the biggest bidder may not be the best for the club, but what would he care? Help!

2 minutes ago, Gravel rash said:

Apologies if this sounds a bit thick but does it now come down to Anderson choosing which bid is best for him? I mean the biggest bidder may not be the best for the club, but what would he care? Help!

There’s only 1 bidder, ignore Nixon

5 minutes ago, WestStandUpper said:

But isn't the stake foreign, or is it a domestic club?

Can you confirm or deny Ulker?

Could be both

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

Could be both

Ok... can you confirm or deny Ulker? 🙂 

2 minutes ago, WestStandUpper said:

Ok... can you confirm or deny Ulker? 🙂 

Is he British based ?

Its a British based buyer 

4 minutes ago, WestStandUpper said:

Ok... can you confirm or deny Ulker? 🙂 

Were you reluctant to sign up