Guest Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 Just now, Sluffy said: Then you are either calling the Administrator a liar or be in complete denial over Anderson. There is a difference between what he is legally owed (which is seemingly considerably less than he claims he is owed) and what morally he should receive. A man who had a policy of not paying anyone.....as is now revealed....
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Boby Brno said: It’s a long document but as far as I can see, it does not include the hotel. Thanks, I didn't think it did but best to make sure. Expect then a similar list to be made public by the Hotel Administrator in a few days or so, no doubt featuring the name of Mr Anderson again and Prescott Business Park (Michael James). Sorry for your financial loss.
Zico Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 22 minutes ago, Sluffy said: I don't know how to put this any simpler - the Administrator is officially saying that someone called Ken Anderson is owed some money by the club. If he's owed the money he has had to put it in first to be owed. So the answer is yes. I'm not saying that, the courts legal representative is officially saying that! I was suggesting the 180k was some sort of unpaid wage Not money he's put in and he's owed back He said he never took a wage but there's 180k on the unsecured list alongside bills and wages So I'm putting it out there that he was due 180k in wages that he's technically not been able to pay himself
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said: There is a difference between what he is legally owed (which is seemingly considerably less than he claims he is owed) and what morally he should receive. A man who had a policy of not paying anyone.....as is now revealed.... I don't think you are understanding this - the Hotel Administrator has not issued his report yet where KA could be showed to be a secured creditor for the remainder of the monies the he is shown to be a secured creditor at Companies House. As for not paying anyone, what should he have been paying with? There doesn't appear to be any money in the business. And up to now the Administrator doesn't seem to have issued any legal proceedings for Ken to have illegally taking anything out of it.
Boby Brno Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, Sluffy said: Thanks, I didn't think it did but best to make sure. Expect then a similar list to be made public by the Hotel Administrator in a few days or so, no doubt featuring the name of Mr Anderson again and Prescott Business Park (Michael James). Sorry for your financial loss. Thanks but I was able to limit the damage in January when it became obvious that things were going pear shaped. It could have been a lot worse. In reply to some on here who say suppliers should have stopped supplying, many did. It’s always a last resort and it’s difficult when we have had a good business relationship.
tomski Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 13 minutes ago, Sluffy said: Then you are either calling the Administrator a liar or be in complete denial over Anderson. Or option 3 that I mistrust anything ken says or does.
tomski Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 13 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said: There is a difference between what he is legally owed (which is seemingly considerably less than he claims he is owed) and what morally he should receive. A man who had a policy of not paying anyone.....as is now revealed.... Spot on.
Guest Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Sluffy said: I don't think you are understanding this - the Hotel Administrator has not issued his report yet where KA could be showed to be a secured creditor for the remainder of the monies the he is shown to be a secured creditor at Companies House. As for not paying anyone, what should he have been paying with? There doesn't appear to be any money in the business. And up to now the Administrator doesn't seem to have issued any legal proceedings for Ken to have illegally taking anything out of it. It has been said that in this report KA claims he is owed 6M more than the admins have determined.... As for "no money in the business" well, it shows he was totally irresponsible then doesn't it? Its not like he rocked up and inherited a business in this state. He added costs, didn't pay anyone and let it rack up debts whilst ensuring his debt was secured. There is absolutely no defence of that. At all. Give it up, its in black and white now.
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said: I was suggesting the 180k was some sort of unpaid wage Not money he's put in and he's owed back He said he never took a wage but there's 180k on the unsecured list alongside bills and wages So I'm putting it out there that he was due 180k in wages that he's technically not been able to pay himself It more likely to be the money he put in to pay the staff wages rather to be for wages for himself from the club. He would be paid that through directors drawings (he wouldn't be on the payroll as such himself) and more than likely would be paid as a creditor through a company in any case - like he did when he claimed his fees last time by payment to Inner Circle Media Ltd (or whatever his other company was) if he was wanting to take money out of the club, rather than in his own name.
Morizio Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, Sluffy said: I don't think you are understanding this - the Hotel Administrator has not issued his report yet where KA could be showed to be a secured creditor for the remainder of the monies the he is shown to be a secured creditor at Companies House. As for not paying anyone, what should he have been paying with? There doesn't appear to be any money in the business. And up to now the Administrator doesn't seem to have issued any legal proceedings for Ken to have illegally taking anything out of it. You are making a cunt of yourself. KA has presided over the current shit we are in. Time for you to choose, are you a bolton fan or a ska fan?
Boby Brno Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 The report gives a summary of the management accounts up to the administrators taking over ie. turnover and loss but no details of the income and expenditure. If Marc Iles has the full report I’ll leave it to him to report it. Sorry to be vague but I’m not sure of the legal implications of releasing info until it’s in the public domain. Maybe people should wait before making judgments.
Boothy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, tomski said: Go on? 1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said: Time and effort yes, hard cash doubt it, could it be his directors salary, in truth I don’t know. But he’s still a cunt. 😂 As Sluffy said, it's there in black and white. I was just replying to the post that implied he hasn't put money in when that clearly is disproved here. I'm not contesting the morals of the bloke or discussing how he came to do it but this proves that he has injected money into the business in order to become a secured creditor.
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said: It has been said that in this report KA claims he is owed 6M more than the admins have determined.... As for "no money in the business" well, it shows he was totally irresponsible then doesn't it? Its not like he rocked up and inherited a business in this state. He added costs, didn't pay anyone and let it rack up debts whilst ensuring his debt was secured. There is absolutely no defence of that. At all. Give it up, its in black and white now. Eh? He did inherit a business in this shape - he bought it for a £1, PLUS THE DEBT. The club has run a trading debt for year, after year, after year. The Holdsworth £5m BM loan plunged it further into debt! If you look at the Administrators report all the secured creditors shown on the list (assuming Andersons £1.6m is part of the money to pay back the initial BM loan) pre-date Anderson's time. The amount outstanding - ie the shortfall and trading - amounting to around £10m. This was more or less the situation we had the season before when Madine's £8m plugged the gap - otherwise we'd be in the same place we are today but a year earlier. It's not rocket science to know we have been running at a loss all along, the only question being has Anderson made the loss bigger by taking money out of the club for himself illegally. Seems up to now the Administrator hasn't found that to be so. The bottom line is the club ran at a loss (the only cost Anderson seemed to add to it was the signing of players at the start of last season - maybe he should just have played the kids - although I don't think the EFL would have allowed that) and when Eddie suddenly died there was no one else prepared to personally prop it up. As for it being in "black and white now", you did make me laugh being as you had completely forgot that the Administrator for the Hotel as yet to publish his report!
Guest Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Boothy said: As Sluffy said, it's there in black and white. I was just replying to the post that implied he hasn't put money in when that clearly is disproved here. I'm not contesting the morals of the bloke or discussing how he came to do it but this proves that he has injected money into the business in order to become a secured creditor. It doesn't. It means he is owed money by the business. So are Carrs pasties - it doesn't prove Carrs pasties "stuck money in".
Mounts Kipper Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Boothy said: As Sluffy said, it's there in black and white. I was just replying to the post that implied he hasn't put money in when that clearly is disproved here. I'm not contesting the morals of the bloke or discussing how he came to do it but this proves that he has injected money into the business in order to become a secured creditor. I’ll bet he’s taken more out than he’s put in, that means in my world he’s put fuck all in. Edited July 10, 2019 by Mounts Kipper
Mounts Kipper Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sluffy said: Eh? He did inherit a business in this shape - he bought it for a £1, PLUS THE DEBT. The club has run a trading debt for year, after year, after year. The Holdsworth £5m BM loan plunged it further into debt! If you look at the Administrators report all the secured creditors shown on the list (assuming Andersons £1.6m is part of the money to pay back the initial BM loan) pre-date Anderson's time. The amount outstanding - ie the shortfall and trading - amounting to around £10m. This was more or less the situation we had the season before when Madine's £8m plugged the gap - otherwise we'd be in the same place we are today but a year earlier. It's not rocket science to know we have been running at a loss all along, the only question being has Anderson made the loss bigger by taking money out of the club for himself illegally. Seems up to now the Administrator hasn't found that to be so. The bottom line is the club ran at a loss (the only cost Anderson seemed to add to it was the signing of players at the start of last season - maybe he should just have played the kids - although I don't think the EFL would have allowed that) and when Eddie suddenly died there was no one else prepared to personally prop it up. As for it being in "black and white now", you did make me laugh being as you had completely forgot that the Administrator for the Hotel as yet to publish his report! Did you miss Kens statement that we were more or less breaking even? Just in case you did miss it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45169678 Edited July 10, 2019 by Mounts Kipper
HomerJay Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 48 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said: There is a difference between what he is legally owed (which is seemingly considerably less than he claims he is owed) and what morally he should receive. A man who had a policy of not paying anyone.....as is now revealed... How could he pay them? With what funds?
snowball Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Marc505 said: Another one who prefers fucking biltong I see. Sorry i was sarcastically referring to Marc Iles being a drama queen for having the temerity to publish our eye watering debt as anybody now seriously worried about our club is apparently one. No offence meant to you
Guest Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Sluffy said: Eh? He did inherit a business in this shape - he bought it for a £1, PLUS THE DEBT. The club has run a trading debt for year, after year, after year. The Holdsworth £5m BM loan plunged it further into debt! If you look at the Administrators report all the secured creditors shown on the list (assuming Andersons £1.6m is part of the money to pay back the initial BM loan) pre-date Anderson's time. The amount outstanding - ie the shortfall and trading - amounting to around £10m. This was more or less the situation we had the season before when Madine's £8m plugged the gap - otherwise we'd be in the same place we are today but a year earlier. It's not rocket science to know we have been running at a loss all along, the only question being has Anderson made the loss bigger by taking money out of the club for himself illegally. Seems up to now the Administrator hasn't found that to be so. The bottom line is the club ran at a loss (the only cost Anderson seemed to add to it was the signing of players at the start of last season - maybe he should just have played the kids - although I don't think the EFL would have allowed that) and when Eddie suddenly died there was no one else prepared to personally prop it up. As for it being in "black and white now", you did make me laugh being as you had completely forgot that the Administrator for the Hotel as yet to publish his report! You're missing the point. When he "bought" the business for £1 - he talked about cutting costs and reducing the losses to "manageable" amounts. Instead what he did was rely on ED to plug losses, stop paying anyone he possibly could, take out his consultancy fees, tell everyone "its fine we have low debt and are better placed than most other championship clubs" all whilst not paying the pasty bill. Then threw a hissy fit when supporters complained as the scale of the disaster began to become public knowledge. I'm not accusing him of legality. But there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever to say he was anything other than a desperately poor owner of a football club at absolute best. Investing nothing and looking to make a quick buck in a sale. The man did nothing but run the club's name further into the ground whilst leaving local businesses short.
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said: Did you miss Kens statement that we were more or less breaking even? Yes we should have broken even, maybe even have a small profit from the season before last when we sold Madine - just as I've wrote above. Mounts, don't let your hatred get in the way of your reasoning.
Wanderlust Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 22 minutes ago, Sluffy said: It more likely to be the money he put in to pay the staff wages rather to be for wages for himself from the club. He would be paid that through directors drawings (he wouldn't be on the payroll as such himself) and more than likely would be paid as a creditor through a company in any case - like he did when he claimed his fees last time by payment to Inner Circle Media Ltd (or whatever his other company was) if he was wanting to take money out of the club, rather than in his own name. Without wanting to trawl over old ground, there are plenty of ways to become a creditor of a business without directly putting your own "personal' money in e.g. awarding yourself (as the majority shareholder so uncontestable) a £5 million Directors bonus then "lending" it to the club to finance another part of the business instead of drawing it down. Or cross lending between businesses. A lot can be done with creative accounting and back to back deals. I'm wondering if the he still has a debt on the money he borrowed from Eddie? We'll see what happened down the line with a bit of luck including what the remaining current assets are. Remind me, what was the club's level of debt after Eddie had wiped off the £170 odd million?
Guest Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, HomerJay said: How could he pay them? With what funds? Perhaps he should have been thinking about that before committing to more bills we couldn't afford. Perhaps he could have tried some honesty in the first place. Perhaps there were people who might have helped out had Ken been up front. And perhaps given we couldn't afford to pay our bills he should have done the right thing and got the business into administration months before EDT finally did.
HomerJay Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 38 minutes ago, Boby Brno said: Thanks but I was able to limit the damage in January when it became obvious that things were going pear shaped. It could have been a lot worse. In reply to some on here who say suppliers should have stopped supplying, many did. It’s always a last resort and it’s difficult when we have had a good business relationship. I feel for you. I've been there my friend. Had to fold a business because of it. Also recently, we pretty much turned down bwfc business because their credit was shite. We didn't want the risk. And they wouldn't pay up front. We also just missed something similar with Preston guild hall, but forced a payment before they went into admin. Not what you want to hear, but you live and learn.
Mounts Kipper Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said: You're missing the point. When he "bought" the business for £1 - he talked about cutting costs and reducing the losses to "manageable" amounts. Instead what he did was rely on ED to plug losses, stop paying anyone he possibly could, take out his consultancy fees, tell everyone "its fine we have low debt and are better placed than most other championship clubs" all whilst not paying the pasty bill. Then threw a hissy fit when supporters complained as the scale of the disaster began to become public knowledge. I'm not accusing him of legality. But there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever to say he was anything other than a desperately poor owner of a football club at absolute best. Investing nothing and looking to make a quick buck in a sale. The man did nothing but run the club's name further into the ground whilst leaving local businesses short. Anderson’s a clever man, he’s learned from his previous experiences, knows how to pull money out of businesses legally and drain and starve the business of cash flow, while he may not be guilty of a crime, he’s guilty of trashing a grand old football club, not paying loyal and honest suppliers, cheating the fans and his staff, there is no way on earth the debt levels should be at this level with the income he has received, while he might not be guilty of a crime, most normal folk would class him as a crook.
Sluffy Posted July 10, 2019 Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, bwfcfan5 said: You're missing the point. When he "bought" the business for £1 - he talked about cutting costs and reducing the losses to "manageable" amounts. Instead what he did was rely on ED to plug losses, stop paying anyone he possibly could, take out his consultancy fees, tell everyone "its fine we have low debt and are better placed than most other championship clubs" all whilst not paying the pasty bill. Then threw a hissy fit when supporters complained as the scale of the disaster began to become public knowledge. I'm not accusing him of legality. But there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever to say he was anything other than a desperately poor owner of a football club at absolute best. Investing nothing and looking to make a quick buck in a sale. The man did nothing but run the club's name further into the ground whilst leaving local businesses short. I suggest you look at the clubs published accounts as it is clear that expenditure and wages were in fact reduced under Anderson. The simple fact is which no one can get away from is that the club costs more to run than the money it generates - that can't be shown more clearly than the new owners having to show proof that they can fund the expected TRADING LOSS for the next TWO YEARS. If you're so clever, how would you have managed things any better? How would you have kept the club running without the money coming in to pay the debts and no one wanted to buy the club because of the debts they would have to clear (assuming they were going to be a decent owner)?
Recommended Posts