Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
Just now, Okocha10 said:

Only read a bit of administrator's don't think it provides the amount of money Ken's owed 

so, where is your figure  of 7 or 8 million coming from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Give it a fucking rest eh  ‘somebody’s moral expectations of someone are very different to the legal obligations you know that and I know that. So why don’t you lay off patronising folk Chris and

I really cannot wait for the day we don’t have to read the words moonshift, Inner fucking circle, blue bastard marble or any piece of shit word associated to this horrible draining 3 year bullshit sag

Fucking massive clear out coming on WW later, either way.

Posted Images

Just now, Casino said:

is that in the administrators report?

It’s in the clubs administrators report. The hotel report states that his charge against the hotel is dependent on his payoff from the club. The date of the charge is September 2018. Just after his loan from ED.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read through the Admin Statement and firstly the rates they charge makes me realise I should have been better at sums at school and become an accountant.

But looking through the list of creditors it appears to me that the hotel was basically running normally for a good while and not paying the bills. At first I thought cheeky bastards, but I would have hated to be the poor sod who had to deal with the demands every day, and try and give the impression that all is rosy. And I also feel for the many small businesses who could have folded just for providing services and goods thinking they would get paid.

Its been and utter dogs breakfast for a long time, and not surprising its come to this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I think you are correct, players are on strike, seems no other solution, we either get deal done before season starts pay players and bring some players in or I think we’re goosed as I can’t see the EFL letting us start the season in this state of disarray, can anyone see another way out of this if  the takeover isn’t finalised? 

Yeah. Iles raised a good point on the podcast (first time for everything) that the U18s who technically as it stands we might be able to play would need to be registered. So they would fill up slots in the 23 man squad. So even if we told the EFL that the deal would be done two days after Gillingham to fulfill that fixture we'd effectively need to fill our squads with academy lads and therefore under the EFL embargo would not subsequently be able to pull a squad together. His view was that the EFL would not want us playing a full season with underdeveloped kids where we'd be tanked every week because their goal is to protect the integrity of the competition.

That's an issue especially as Iles reckons none of the senior lads will play at all unless they are paid in full. And also said some have offers elsewhere and are likely to go very soon if nothing forthcoming here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boby Brno said:

It’s in the clubs administrators report. The hotel report states that his charge against the hotel is dependent on his payoff from the club. The date of the charge is September 2018. Just after his loan from ED.

I must have missed that bit in the report, it just says its unconfirmed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the accountants on here clear this up for me, ken says hotel owes him 7.5 million of which presumably 5 million is the money Eddie lent him, and also the EDT have put BWFC into admin partly for the same 5 million. Apologies if I’m being thick but can someone explain this? 

 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hughmungus said:

I must have missed that bit in the report, it just says its unconfirmed

The administrators report of the club states.

”The company’s records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson is £1578042. However it should be noted that Mr Anderson believed the sum outstanding in this regard is circa £7.5 million”

The hotel report states.

”It should be noted that KA charges has arisen as a result of a cross guarantee of a debt held in the football club and therefore, this liability is contingent on any funds received by KA out of admin of the football club”

Edited by Boby Brno
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seem's like the administrator's don't even know how much is owed off that report, says PGP amount of claim is £5,500.00 but uncertain how much Anderson is owed, also noted "It should be noted that Kenneth Anderson's charge has arisen as a result of a cross guarantee of a debt held in the football club. Therefore, this liability is contingent on any funds received by Mr Anderson out of the Administration of the Football Club." Brilliant

Edited by Okocha10
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boby Brno said:

The administrators report of the club states.

”The company’s records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson is £1578042. However it should be noted that Mr Anderson believed the sum outstanding in this regard is circa £7.5 million”

The hotel report states.

”It should be noted that KA charges has arisen as a result of a cross guarantee of a debt held in the football club and therefore, this liability is contingent on any funds received by KA out of admin of the football club”

So when it says "uncertain" does it mean once he settles with the club, his charge on the hotel disappears ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get how Anderson can even claim he's owed 7.5 million when there's no report from administrator to say he's owed that amount of money, surely is should just go off the findings of the administrator? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hughmungus said:

So when it says "uncertain" does it mean once he settles with the club, his charge on the hotel disappears ?

I would assume so. I would also assume that it is this that is holding everything up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Okocha10 said:

Here's another journo reporting half the story. The £525K consultancy fee was almost certainly needed to avoid punitive tax charges relating to payments made by BWFC to Holdsworth and the liquidators of Holdsworth's SSBWFC. You won't find this anywhere but you will find the £472K Anderson's company spent on paying off Holdsworth and agreeing settlement with Blumarble to keep the show on the road.

The £7.5m is broadly in line with Howard's revelations early on in this thread. The £5m borrowed from ED to pay off Blumarble has been well documented. The other c.£2.5m hasn't but in all probability related to money ED lent to KA in the first half of the 2017/18 season. i.e. before the Madine sale. I cannot see how the club could have stayed in business until January 2018 without additional funding.

Its interesting that the hotel administrators have filed their report at Companies House whilst the administrators of BWFC haven't (or not yet). Interesting also that the Beeno, Grauniad, Times, PFA, ST etc, etc, etc, have made little or no comment on Mr Holdsworth's part in this sorry state of affairs.

Edited by Chris Custodiet
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Here's another journo reporting half the story. The £525K consultancy fee was almost certainly needed to avoid punitive tax charges relating to payments made by BWFC to Holdsworth and the liquidators of Holdsworth's SSBWFC. You won't find this anywhere but you will find the £472K Anderson's company spent on paying off Holdsworth and agreeing settlement with Blumarble to keep the show on the road.

The £7.5m is broadly in line with Howard's revelations early on in this thread. The £5m borrowed from ED to pay off Blumarble has been well documented. The other c.£2.5m hasn't but in all probability related to money ED lent to KA in the first half of the 2017/18 season. i.e. before the Madine sale. I cannot see how the club could have stayed in business until January 2018 without additional funding.

Its interesting that the hotel administrators have filed their report at Companies House whilst the administrators of BWFC haven't (or not yet). Interesting also that the Beeno, Grauniad, Times, PFA, ST etc, etc, etc, have made little or no comment on Mr Holdsworth's part in this sorry state of affairs.

It’s good to hear your input but ffs stop referring to the Bolton news as the Beeno, you sound about 11 with that persistent schoolboy jibe. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boby Brno said:

It’s in the clubs administrators report. The hotel report states that his charge against the hotel is dependent on his payoff from the club. The date of the charge is September 2018. Just after his loan from ED.

I'll be very interested to see what this report says and doesn't say when it is released into the public domain. Rubin's have once again been beaten to the punch by Quantuma.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I think you are correct, players are on strike, seems no other solution, we either get deal done before season starts pay players and bring some players in or I think we’re goosed as I can’t see the EFL letting us start the season in this state of disarray, can anyone see another way out of this if  the takeover isn’t finalised? 

That’s what I was getting at yesterday, efl must have a deadline day for themselves

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It’s good to hear your input but ffs stop referring to the Bolton news as the Beeno, you sound about 11 with that persistent schoolboy jibe. 

I could call it the Bolton Fake News if you'd prefer it but as I'm not  a Trump fan I'll stick with the Beeno.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I'll be very interested to see what this report says and doesn't say when it is released into the public domain. Rubin's have once again been beaten to the punch by Quantuma.

I thought it would have been published by now. I’ve been reluctant to reveal too much until it’s in the public domain. I’m guessing they may publish soon due to the concern and that Quantuma published first. We’ll have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Hotel administrators statement is now up on Companies House website

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03674979/filing-history

The bits that stand out to me are sections 5.5 and 5.6 on page 7 and 5.12 on page 8 

5.5   It should be noted that the joint administrators will shortly be engaging in a marketing and sale process of the above assets. This has been delayed since the commencement of the administration due to the amount of operational issues that the company has faced since the commencement of the administration , including re-opening the hotel. Additionally since the company is inextricably linked to the football club, the sale of the hotel is highly contingent on the sale of the football club. 

5.6   As Such , given the preferred bidder of the football clubs administrators was only confirmed recently the joint administrators considered it appropriate to delay marketing the hotel until such time as the sale of the football club was further progressed. 

5.12   To advise on appropriate legal matters and to prepare required legal documentation the joint administrators instructed Walker Morris LLP a firm of Lawyers with the appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with these types of administrations 

 I find 5.12 shocking as Walker Morris are Ken Andersons solicitors and as such have a massive conflict of Interest and the Hotels creditors ought to be raising that as a major concern

With regard to 5.5 and 5.6 I just detect the hand of KA all over this trying yet again to manipulate the situation to his own ends - If the administrators accept the Hotel is inextricably linked to the football club , then surely they must accept that without a football club there will be no hotel , and to my mind sitting back and not marketing the hotel for 6 weeks is inexcusable - they should have been marketed concurrently 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

The bits that stand out to me are sections 5.5 and 5.6 on page 7 and 5.12 on page 8 

5.5   It should be noted that the joint administrators will shortly be engaging in a marketing and sale process of the above assets. This has been delayed since the commencement of the administration due to the amount of operational issues that the company has faced since the commencement of the administration , including re-opening the hotel. Additionally since the company is inextricably linked to the football club, the sale of the hotel is highly contingent on the sale of the football club. 

5.6   As Such , given the preferred bidder of the football clubs administrators was only confirmed recently the joint administrators considered it appropriate to delay marketing the hotel until such time as the sale of the football club was further progressed. 

5.12   To advise on appropriate legal matters and to prepare required legal documentation the joint administrators instructed Walker Morris LLP a firm of Lawyers with the appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with these types of administrations 

 I find 5.12 shocking as Walker Morris are Ken Andersons solicitors and as such have a massive conflict of Interest and the Hotels creditors ought to be raising that as a major concern

With regard to 5.5 and 5.6 I just detect the hand of KA all over this trying yet again to manipulate the situation to his own ends - If the administrators accept the Hotel is inextricably linked to the football club , then surely they must accept that without a football club there will be no hotel , and to my mind sitting back and not marketing the hotel for 6 weeks is inexcusable - they should have been marketed concurrently 

 

 

 

So KA influence is still all over our club and it’s future, would it be beneficial financially  to KA if we actually ended up liquidated? I ask this as that was what KA was close to doing when we were last under a winding up order and if it is a better outcome for him,  then is that now the most likely outcome? 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

The bits that stand out to me are sections 5.5 and 5.6 on page 7 and 5.12 on page 8 

5.5   It should be noted that the joint administrators will shortly be engaging in a marketing and sale process of the above assets. This has been delayed since the commencement of the administration due to the amount of operational issues that the company has faced since the commencement of the administration , including re-opening the hotel. Additionally since the company is inextricably linked to the football club, the sale of the hotel is highly contingent on the sale of the football club. 

5.6   As Such , given the preferred bidder of the football clubs administrators was only confirmed recently the joint administrators considered it appropriate to delay marketing the hotel until such time as the sale of the football club was further progressed. 

5.12   To advise on appropriate legal matters and to prepare required legal documentation the joint administrators instructed Walker Morris LLP a firm of Lawyers with the appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with these types of administrations 

 I find 5.12 shocking as Walker Morris are Ken Andersons solicitors and as such have a massive conflict of Interest and the Hotels creditors ought to be raising that as a major concern

With regard to 5.5 and 5.6 I just detect the hand of KA all over this trying yet again to manipulate the situation to his own ends - If the administrators accept the Hotel is inextricably linked to the football club , then surely they must accept that without a football club there will be no hotel , and to my mind sitting back and not marketing the hotel for 6 weeks is inexcusable - they should have been marketed concurrently 

 

 

 

Very good spot that, sounds dodgy as out what's going on, doesn't surprise me though in the slightest. Here's some involvement in the past with Walker Morris LLP with Ken Anderson https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/news/walker-morris-advises-on-purchase-of-bolton-wanderers-fc/

Edited by Okocha10
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Benny The Ball said:

The bits that stand out to me are sections 5.5 and 5.6 on page 7 and 5.12 on page 8 

5.5   It should be noted that the joint administrators will shortly be engaging in a marketing and sale process of the above assets. This has been delayed since the commencement of the administration due to the amount of operational issues that the company has faced since the commencement of the administration , including re-opening the hotel. Additionally since the company is inextricably linked to the football club, the sale of the hotel is highly contingent on the sale of the football club. 

5.6   As Such , given the preferred bidder of the football clubs administrators was only confirmed recently the joint administrators considered it appropriate to delay marketing the hotel until such time as the sale of the football club was further progressed. 

5.12   To advise on appropriate legal matters and to prepare required legal documentation the joint administrators instructed Walker Morris LLP a firm of Lawyers with the appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with these types of administrations 

 I find 5.12 shocking as Walker Morris are Ken Andersons solicitors and as such have a massive conflict of Interest and the Hotels creditors ought to be raising that as a major concern

With regard to 5.5 and 5.6 I just detect the hand of KA all over this trying yet again to manipulate the situation to his own ends - If the administrators accept the Hotel is inextricably linked to the football club , then surely they must accept that without a football club there will be no hotel , and to my mind sitting back and not marketing the hotel for 6 weeks is inexcusable - they should have been marketed concurrently 

 

 

 

You have a point on 5.12 but wouldn't Quantuma's decision to use WM be justified if it was more cost effective and quicker to use lawyers that were right up to speed on the case and had all the relevant expertise? I assume WM would have considered the 'conflict of interest' issue.

If it is the case that Ken Anderson borrowed several million pounds from Eddie Davies to try to keep BWFC in business whilst a longer term solution was sought and the Eddie Davies Trust now want their money back, why would it be wrong for Ken Anderson to rely on the security for the loans just like any other secured lender would?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.