41 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Random ex-wanderer?

Not a proven leader, experience within a football club, and a career in law.

Give us a break: ken has none of those and had criminal history.

I know which way I'd go given a choice.

For what it is worth I was talking about Holdsworth, I thought actually naming him in my post might have given you a clue but I presume you must have missed it.

Easily done.

Sluffy, is that your reg plate on Crompton way near watermillock?

@Sluffy timing semantics... so it could be the same £5m.

KA could have put £5m cash in to settle blumarble, may have had to get it done quick given the negotiations.

So that transaction could have been done before the secured debt agreement was drawn up.... KA as the director isn’t going to sign off the agreement

19 minutes ago, DLH said:

@Sluffy timing semantics... so it could be the same £5m.

KA could have put £5m cash in to settle blumarble, may have had to get it done quick given the negotiations.

So that transaction could have been done before the secured debt agreement was drawn up.... KA as the director isn’t going to sign off the agreement

Thanks for the reply - funnily enough I had just been adding to my post above to speak more directly to you - maybe you would be so good to have a read of it please.

You don't need to reply, I'm sure no one else is interested and events this week will consign this and everything else to history.

I still don't follow the logic of what went on but I won't lose any sleep over it.

Thank you for your efforts in trying to make things clearer for me.

31 minutes ago, Breightmet Boy said:

Sluffy, is that your reg plate on Crompton way near watermillock?

Shhh!

Loose lips.

I don't want any of 'the boys' paying me a visit!

The matter of "which £5 million" will come out in time. Perhaps it was the £5 million that we got in EFL payments and for transfers? Or perhaps it was "leveraged" elsewhere? Difficult to ascribe any of the £5 millions the club received during Anderson's tenure to specific payments and until we see the accounts it's unlikely we'll know whether or not Anderson put a penny into the club as the only thing we know at this juncture is the money he took out as per 2017 accounts. I'd just like to see some evidence of him borrowing money from Eddie, lending it to the club and most importantly paying it back to Eddie's estate.

12 hours ago, DLH said:

You’ve put that a lot better than I did, but that’s the point I was trying to make badly... the cash from the loan could have gone anywhere... it’s just been secured against ICI and BL. 

I think the 3 way transaction is very likely different to what you are saying, but we can agree to disagree on that. For me, and this answers @Sluffy, the cash from the loan probably went to KA, and that is what he secured against bwfc assets.

£5m moonshift to KA, then KA loans to BL, BL pay off BM... paying debt with debt, but only ever £5m. 

Let me put it this way. I would ask myself would Eddie Davies have been so trusting as to hand over £4.4m to Ken Anderson to repay Blumarble without being able to ensure that that's where the money went? And wouldn't any lawyer involved strongly advise against it?

As for the other £600K, it remains unclear whether it was handed over. BM took security for £5m but only handed over £4m. There were interest and charges that BM needed securing as well. I can't see why Eddie wouldn't think the same or do the same..

Edited June 11, 20197 yr by Chris Custodiet

6 hours ago, Hoppy510 said:

The matter of "which £5 million" will come out in time. Perhaps it was the £5 million that we got in EFL payments and for transfers? Or perhaps it was "leveraged" elsewhere? Difficult to ascribe any of the £5 millions the club received during Anderson's tenure to specific payments and until we see the accounts it's unlikely we'll know whether or not Anderson put a penny into the club as the only thing we know at this juncture is the money he took out as per 2017 accounts. I'd just like to see some evidence of him borrowing money from Eddie, lending it to the club and most importantly paying it back to Eddie's estate.

We don't know everything and I expect we never will but there is a lot of information that, one way or another, has been put into the public domain that allows us to figure out much of the likely course of events.

At one stage, Howard was a very useful  source of information on WW. One of the more interesting bits was that KA/ICIL owed Moonshift nearly £8m. These figures are not on the public record but Howard  has assured me that the immediate source of this information was ED's lawyers. The inference was that the figures appeared  in the prospectus made available to interested parties prior to the appointment of administrators.

One might wonder why both the ST and the Beeno, with their large axes to grind, seem to have avoided making any reference to any of the figures in that prospectus.

15 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Believe what you want mate.

This was his short bio under his picture when he was on the ST Board -

"Daniel Izza is a qualified solicitor of over 20 years and set up his own commercial practice in 2010, after spending time as a partner in three Manchester-based firms. He was recommended to the Trust by former Wanderers captain Gudni Bergsson.

https://www.burndenaces.co.uk/2016/07/12/bwfcst-announce-board-after-scrapping-election-process.html

As I said before. I don't care.

2 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Let me put it this way. I would ask myself would Eddie Davies have been so trusting as to hand over £4.4m to Ken Anderson to repay Blumarble without being able to ensure that that's where the money went? And wouldn't any lawyer involved strongly advise against it?

Without speculating who knows, though I'd probably argue that if you are securing a loan against ownership/control of the club you aren't entirely trusting of the individual you are lending the money too. 

Don't get me wrong, it could well be that KA "pumped" money into the club and we have 2 elements of debt created in a couple of weeks that are purely coincidental, but if you had the cash to pay off BM why go to ED in the first place? Particularly when defaulting means you risk losing the club for nothing.

56 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

We don't know everything and I expect we never will but there is a lot of information that, one way or another, has been put into the public domain that allows us to figure out much of the likely course of events.

At one stage, Howard was a very useful  source of information on WW. One of the more interesting bits was that KA/ICIL owed Moonshift nearly £8m. These figures are not on the public record but Howard  has assured me that the immediate source of this information was ED's lawyers. The inference was that the figures appeared  in the prospectus made available to interested parties prior to the appointment of administrators.

One might wonder why both the ST and the Beeno, with their large axes to grind, seem to have avoided making any reference to any of the figures in that prospectus.

Perhaps they didn't have access to the figures - or are you talking about the A5 flyer of a "prospectus" that was issued ages ago which gave us all a good laugh? My understanding was that anyone who wanted to find out what the real numbers - or at least the numbers according to Anderson are, had to cough up big bucks to have a gander. And then do loads of DD to work out how close to reality they are.

We've had nothing concrete to consider since the 2017 accounts were finally published so the point I was making was that it's a bit of a willy waving contest when folk disagree about which bit of speculation is right and which alleged income was used to pay which alleged debt. I think the ST and BN have no more idea than the stories they're fed TBH.

What I do think is likely to happen is that we'll get some insight once/if new owners are in place and it wouldn't surprise me if they went for an early filing just to baseline whatever it is they've taken on.

Does anyone know what happens if any of the offers from these 5 partys are not acceptable to the administrators?

Edited June 11, 20197 yr by briannz

15 minutes ago, briannz said:

Does anyone know what happens if any of the offers from these 5 partys are not acceptable to the administrators?

think they have to accept the best offer.

 

17 minutes ago, briannz said:

Does anyone know what happens if any of the offers from these 5 partys are not acceptable to the administrators?

If none are acceptable they would more than likely liquidate.

58 minutes ago, Hoppy510 said:

Perhaps they didn't have access to the figures - or are you talking about the A5 flyer of a "prospectus" that was issued ages ago which gave us all a good laugh? My understanding was that anyone who wanted to find out what the real numbers - or at least the numbers according to Anderson are, had to cough up big bucks to have a gander. And then do loads of DD to work out how close to reality they are.

We've had nothing concrete to consider since the 2017 accounts were finally published so the point I was making was that it's a bit of a willy waving contest when folk disagree about which bit of speculation is right and which alleged income was used to pay which alleged debt. I think the ST and BN have no more idea than the stories they're fed TBH.

What I do think is likely to happen is that we'll get some insight once/if new owners are in place and it wouldn't surprise me if they went for an early filing just to baseline whatever it is they've taken on.

The ST and the BN seem to me to have had a lot of attitude without knowing what the facts are whilst ignoring facts that don't suit their agendas that are on the public record. e.g. ICIL's accounts.

A flyer is not quite the same thing as a prospectus provided to bona fide parties via a reputable law firm but I think you know that, don't you?.

Edited June 11, 20197 yr by Chris Custodiet

3 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

The ST and the BN seem to me to have had a lot of attitude without knowing what the facts are whilst ignoring facts that don't suit their agendas that are on the public record. e.g. ICIL's accounts.

A flyer is not quite the same thing as a prospectus provided to bona fide parties via a reputable law firm but I think you know that, don't you?.

He would also know that a £5m debt being called in, with Administrators at the club ready to plunge the club into Administration and an input of £5m from Davies to the club via Anderson and the immediate payment/agreed settlement of the loan was not just coincidental and an obvious trail of where the money went.

I attach a link to an article written at the time by Nixon and published in the Sun - yes I know, before the obvious comments are made - I attach it specifically though because its clearly more informed as to what was actually going on at the time than most journalists - a sort of 'Howard' post if you will, in that some of it must have come from informed sources and some of it may be spin!

Certainly worth a read if you've not seen it before imo.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/7307656/bolton-wanderers-administration-eddie-davies/

 

Edited June 11, 20197 yr by Sluffy
grammar errors

The comments from the administrators that final bids must be in by Wednesday- is this suggesting a new party could potentially enter the race, albeit with work to do to prove their worth?

Seems an odd question: but my neighbour was saying just a couple of days ago, that he'd listened/read comments suggesting that Chinese don't necessarily do business in the way that admin has dictated, and may well submit a late and larger bid than others.

Don't know how they'd know what size that bid would have to be; just passing on something I was told.

Probably bollocks, but who knows.

Plobry borrocks

7 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

He would also know that a £5m debt being called in, with Administrators at the club ready to plunge the club into Administration and an input of £5m from Davies to the club via Anderson and the immediate payment/agreed settlement of the loan was not just coincidental and an obvious trail of where the money went.

I attach a link to an article written at the time by Nixon and published in the Sun - yes I know, before the obvious comments are made - I attach it specifically though because its clearly more informed as to what was actually going on at the time than most journalists - a sort of 'Howard' post if you will, in that some of it must have come from informed sources and some of it may be spin!

Certainly worth a read if you've not seen it before imo.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/7307656/bolton-wanderers-administration-eddie-davies/

 

I think Hoppy was being deliberately obtuse and obfuscatory. Nixon got it more or less right but not completely right. I believe he made the mistake of confusing the loan with the security for the loan. Its an easy mistake to make but they are not the same thing.

3 hours ago, sleepingindian said:

think they have to accept the best offer.

Do we know if the "best" offer is necessarily the "highest" offer?  So if 1 bidder produces £15mil up front to pay off as many debts as possible, and proof of  £20mil to run the club for 2 years, is that a better offer than someone offering £20mil up front but only £10mil left to run the club?  Surely the administrators can be swayed by a few back handers for want of a better phrase and seek to make as much as poss for themselves as they wont give a toss about the club in another few weeks, and who can blame them? Do the EFL or the Supporters Trust or any other neutral body get any say in who wins?  I suspect not, and I dont suppose any of us know.

1 hour ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I think Hoppy was being deliberately obtuse and obfuscatory. Nixon got it more or less right but not completely right. I believe he made the mistake of confusing the loan with the security for the loan. Its an easy mistake to make but they are not the same thing.

Not intentionally.

Not exactly earth shattering news but I’m told 3 of the bidders are FV, Shibir, and Bassini, let’s hope one of the other 2 bidders has better credentials. 

18 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Not exactly earth shattering news but I’m told 3 of the bidders are FV, Shibir, and Bassini, let’s hope one of the other 2 bidders has better credentials. 

Shibir?

40 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Not exactly earth shattering news but I’m told 3 of the bidders are FV, Shibir, and Bassini, let’s hope one of the other 2 bidders has better credentials. 

id be ok with fv if had to be, just not the loony guy ps who told you that

 

 

Edited June 11, 20197 yr by sleepingindian

41 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Not exactly earth shattering news but I’m told 3 of the bidders are FV, Shibir, and Bassini, let’s hope one of the other 2 bidders has better credentials. 

So Bassini wasn’t the one who got the boot?