2 minutes ago, wakey said:

No chance (imo) in this case. Larry would have to prove he was in a position to complete the purchase. Ignoring the EFL approval issue - think the judge described that as weak - there's still the issue of financing it where it seems to fall over.

Larry's initial funding and his 'now' funding are from different sources according to Larry's own inane public ramblings. There's little chance he could have bought us at the time, but plenty evidence that he couldn't.

Interesting that a statement from 'sir dave rich' was included in the defence bundle.

 

I don’t think it will get to that either.

 

i just don’t think he will stop at this though. He will drag this on as long as he can. 

I worry about FV now. They will want cast Iron guarantees that if they complete it’s theirs and subject to no challenge. Would anybody on here spend money like that and have a doubt it could be taken away? No. So this will hinge on FV’s lawyers now simple as that. 

7 hours ago, Jol_BWFC said:

The problem is, the above is guesswork and speculation - as we don’t know the facts. 

I don’t think Bassini is claiming he completed the deal and owns the club, because presumably there is the small matter if £Xm that he hasn’t paid over to Ken. Without the payment there won’t have been any completion.

Presumably it’s more likely that he is claiming that there has been a breach of contract and is wanting specific performance as a remedy, ie the courts to order that the sale contract is performed / completed and the club sold to him at the purchase price (if he has has satisfied the contract conditions). 

However, that breach of contract claim (if it went to court) would surely be an entirely different trial further down the line, so this injunction hearing would be to determine whether any sale of the club should be prevented pending Bassini launching his breach of contract claim.

As I said at the outset, the information coming out of the administrators is pretty limited, so it’s all a little unclear.

Judge confirms that injunction wasn't to prevent the sale, and that Bassini IS claiming he completed the deal and is owner of Anderson's shares in the club.

Sale can be made to FV BUT if later the judge rules that Bassini is legal owner, the club goes to Bassini, who would be then liable for all the costs incurred under Administration, including FV costs.

No doubt he would commence action against KA and EFL for damages to cover these costs and others he incurred.

If Anderson wins it would be carry on as we are.

My post so roundly ridiculed from the usual suspects on here earlier today seems to be more on the ball than not.

Appleton's submission to the court if reported correctly said an injunction would not effect the sale - so it seems that FV are/were prepared to wait out a decision - so I can't see them walking away yet.

Whether they wait things out to the case is determined or proceed with the purchase is I guess up to them and would also revolve around if they can buy the hotel or not.

Last Thursday they were apparently on the cusp of completing the purchase of club and hotel, wonder if that is still the case as who would want to do a sale and lease back on something that might be taken off them and returned to its 'rightful' owner Bassini if he wins his case?

 

8 minutes ago, Mantra said:

And that can’t happen until September 2 at least, when the transfer window shuts. Hopefully this next admin statement is a good one.

But it can happen - any Time 

1 minute ago, Escobarp said:

i just don’t think he will stop at this though. He will drag this on as long as he can.

The double-edged sword of the Larry - Ken September showdown. Be piss funny (but unlikely) if Larry won, but then any brass he got from Ken he spends making life difficult.

I genuinely don't think anything will happen till after the 2nd September. We will have to see what the administrators statement says.

AdministratorWays

Ken v Bassini straightener outside the club shop is the only way to sort this

Fiver a ticket (no discounts for previous S/T holders) so might fund a new player 

Just now, DirtySanchez said:

Ken v Bassini straightener outside the club shop is the only way to sort this

Fiver a ticket (no discounts for previous S/T holders) so might fund a new player 

now that would be fun

 

From Iles 

 

As the judge put it, there could be a scenario where Mr Bassini looks to address his claim on the club later down the line, if he's successful against Inner Circle Investments. I sense that is heading for a long argument.

just what I’ve said 

10 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

In the eyes of the court, Bassini does have a case. The SPA was signed. £1 SPA, with £199,999 further consideration to be paid. There was evidence from Kens solicitors detailing this hadn't been paid. The judge wanted more time to assess this.

Ultimately, the crux of this sounded like its between Bassini and Ken. I think Bassini knows he isn't going to get the club now, but we can't ignore he did sign an SPA and hence has some grounds.

Interesting that. Helps pull a few things together.

It seems that  KA agreed to sell the 94.5% BL shares to Bassini for half the £250K paid to Holdsworth in May 2016 and the £150K paid to Quantuma in Aug/Sept 2017 to acquire Holdsworth's BL shares.

No big bucks involved in this but large sums were needed to settle overdue secured and unsecured creditors and fund losses for the next two years. This was the real 'proof of funding' test.

2 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Interesting that. Helps pull a few things together.

It seems that  KA agreed to sell the 94.5% BL shares to Bassini for half the £250K paid to Holdsworth in May 2016 and the £150K paid to Quantuma in Aug/Sept 2017 to acquire Holdsworth's BL shares.

No big bucks involved in this but large sums were needed to settle overdue secured and unsecured creditors and fund losses for the next two years. This was the real 'proof of funding' test.

That's what I took from it too. Perhaps naïve of me, but I was expecting initial consideration to be higher for the transaction. That being said, the liabilities that would have to be settled post completion, probably resulted in a lower amount to be paid. Still, the figures mentioned do appear, somewhat, to support Ken in his previous statements in that on the actual sale of his shares, he was willing to accept a loss.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on here, but Bassini did claim that Ken "demanded" a further £5m in consideration. This was an area of contention, and another factor it appeared, in leading to an adjournment until September.

31 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Judge confirms that injunction wasn't to prevent the sale, and that Bassini IS claiming he completed the deal and is owner of Anderson's shares in the club.

Sale can be made to FV BUT if later the judge rules that Bassini is legal owner, the club goes to Bassini, who would be then liable for all the costs incurred under Administration, including FV costs.

No doubt he would commence action against KA and EFL for damages to cover these costs and others he incurred.

If Anderson wins it would be carry on as we are.

My post so roundly ridiculed from the usual suspects on here earlier today seems to be more on the ball than not.

Appleton's submission to the court if reported correctly said an injunction would not effect the sale - so it seems that FV are/were prepared to wait out a decision - so I can't see them walking away yet.

Whether they wait things out to the case is determined or proceed with the purchase is I guess up to them and would also revolve around if they can buy the hotel or not.

Last Thursday they were apparently on the cusp of completing the purchase of club and hotel, wonder if that is still the case as who would want to do a sale and lease back on something that might be taken off them and returned to its 'rightful' owner Bassini if he wins his case?

 

The idea that a court can reverse administration and award Ken the club is for the birds. Never ever happening. However what he might win is compensation. 

Laurence Bassini's statement.

“I am very pleased that the judge has accepted my continued entitlement to an injunction.

“Obviously I fully believe in the integrity of my claim.

“The judgement also contained a very clear warning about a transaction – potentially – raising questions about the administrators’ conduct, for which there will be separate redress.”

ThIs saga is getting so complicated. In a few years people will go on mastermind and their specialist subject will be 'Bolton Wanderers takeover, January to August 2019'

I can see how Bassini could claim against KA for not following through on their agreement. I can't see how, if the club is sold, that Bassini could subsequently be empowered to take it from a third party who bought it from administration?

How could they go about unpicking the differences between the club up for sale then and the post administration and points deduction version of today? 

 

15 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

From Iles 

 

As the judge put it, there could be a scenario where Mr Bassini looks to address his claim on the club later down the line, if he's successful against Inner Circle Investments. I sense that is heading for a long argument.

just what I’ve said 

In your experience/knowledge, and given the apparent parlous state of things, would LB be better just sueing Ken for breach of contract, then come back in for the club once it's taken over?

If it does go long term, or FV walk away, then he may have nothing left to own.

2 hours ago, Spider said:

 

My new Wet Spam friend has moved on to complaining about Sam Allardyce

..the guy that got them promoted from the Championship at the first attempt and took them to 12th in the Prem the next season?

3 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

That's what I took from it too. Perhaps naïve of me, but I was expecting initial consideration to be higher for the transaction. That being said, the liabilities that would have to be settled post completion, probably resulted in a lower amount to be paid. Still, the figures mentioned do appear, somewhat, to support Ken in his previous statements in that on the actual sale of his shares, he was willing to accept a loss.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on here, but Bassini did claim that Ken "demanded" a further £5m in consideration. This was an area of contention, and another factor it appeared, in leading to an adjournment until September.

There's an area glossed over by Rubins (maybe it was expedient to leave it vague) but Ken owes Fildraw the money he borrowed to pay off Blumarble and any other monies borrowed from Fildraw to keep the club going previously. I suspect Ken's £7.5m is accurate but Fildraw/ EDT may well be looking at a compromise in relation to the amounts owed to it by KA and BL respectively.

Why would FV (or any interested party for that matter) complete a takeover whilst Bassini still possibly has a claim of ownership on the club?

1 minute ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Why would FV (or any interested party for that matter) complete a takeover whilst Bassini still possibly has a claim of ownership on the club?

if thats is the case then club will be doomed to liquidation as we wouldn't be able to function. 

3 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Why would FV (or any interested party for that matter) complete a takeover whilst Bassini still possibly has a claim of ownership on the club?

Because of the assurances given by the judge?

2 minutes ago, sleepingindian said:

if thats is the case then club will be doomed to liquidation as we wouldn't be able to function. 

Or the administrator sells to Bassini as the only person who could buy the club without risking it being subsequently taken from his grasp?

Just now, ProfessorWoland said:

Or the administrator sells to Bassini as the only person who could buy the club without risking it being subsequently taken from his grasp?

true

 

4 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Why would FV (or any interested party for that matter) complete a takeover whilst Bassini still possibly has a claim of ownership on the club?

As has been detailed earlier, they wouldn't end up being out of pocket, as Bassini would need to pay costs incurred.

They may decide it's worth pursuing anyway as the worse case scenario won't see them out of pocket. And it seems highly unlikely an event too.

No guarantee obviously, but I don't see it as being quite so cut and dried.

3 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Because of the assurances given by the judge?

What assurances?

1 minute ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

What assurances?

He said that there is no reason why a sale cannot happen