38 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Obviously, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I can see why some were sort of happy enough with him originally.

The fact he rinsed Cardiff for £6M for Madine, is to be admired though

I guess we'll never really get to the bottom of how much he and his ghastly son took out of the club, once they realised it wasn't going to be a simple 12 month "flip"

It won't be anything like as much as people want to believe.

Eddie was already selling off the car park and taking on loans from Warburton and PBP and selling off Euxton even before the sale to Holdsworth.

Holdsworth was supposed to bring £5m to the party, instead he mortgages what was left of the clubs assets to BluMarble for £5m then pockets £1m for himself.

The club therefore had £4m in the 'pot'.

The club reported a loss for the 2014-15 season of £4.6m and was reported to be running a loss of £1m per month f0r 2015-16

Money gained from Tim Ream’s sale at the end of the summer window had been promised to Neil Lennon for signings. The alarm bells started to sound when that money was swallowed up to pay the bills.

Losing £1million a month, Wanderers were sinking fast without investment. Rumours of impending administration were batted away by the chairman at the start of November, shortly before illness forced him to retire from the public spotlight.

Trevor Birch, football’s Red Adair, was recruited by Davies to come in and make some sense of things. He wasted no time in declaring a state of emergency.

Wanderers were insolvent. An unpaid tax and VAT bill booked them the first of three High Court dates with HMRC and accounts were frozen as a total transfer embargo was put in place.

2015-16 REVIEW: The saga of how Bolton Wanderers almost went out of business and were finally sold | The Bolton News

So clearly there wasn't much coming into the club to plunder during Holdsworth/Anderson's time in charge, from March 2016 to August 2019 when FV took over.

Anderson did sell Madine and Clough and I would suggest most of that money kept the club afloat and paid the Administrators fees.

Yes Anderson paid himself £550k (or whatever it was) Consultancy fee - but then again apart from his assistant (can't remember his name) there was no other top-tier management (like there is now) and yes the son got £100k or something like that - but I doubt their was significantly more they could have helped themselves to?

Certainly nothing that the Administrators forensic audit of the books reported about.

1 minute ago, Casino said:

The ACV doesn't/didn't prevent the sale of the ground

Yer a know, but it does make it less straight forward and enables other parties to get preferential bid time.. He was desperate to sell the ground and would have walked away with the money tied up in consultancy fees and we'd have been doubly fooked

Ok, I'll bite for one last time.

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Rubin and Partners were the Administration company that Eddie Davies Trust (EDT) hand picked to undertake the Administration for them and Appleton was always going to be thankful EDT as they made millions from the prolonged Administration process.

Who are strictly independent and working for all creditors, so doesn't matter who engages them. I'm sure that they make a lot more working elsewhere and as the below will show, they didn't side with Fildraw.

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

The amount outstanding to Fidraw in respect of these borrowings is disclosed in the company borrowings as £10,050,000. However it should be noted that Fildraw believes the sum outstanding in this regard is circa £17m

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the clubs accounts show that they only received £10,050,000 from Eddie?

If so they threw out the extra £7m EDT's was 'claiming' they put in - ie it wasn't 'waived' at all

Similarly for Anderson -

The companies records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson as £1,378,042. However it should be noted that Mr Anderson believes the sum outstanding in this regard is circa £7.5m

No that is what the club accounts showed, however, the club accounts which were evidenced to have "poor bookeeping" during the administration. Fildraw evidenced the £17m via there books, however due to issues with the book-keeping at the club there was no evidence in the Bolton ledgers. Anderson didn't evidence the £7.5m. The Administrator went with the Bolton ledger balances as at the end of the day they're administrators not auditors.

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

You can't claim EDT kindly waived away £7m but Anderson was telling porkies when he said he'd put in a similar amount when the books do not support either of their claims that they put in such money.

I'm not saying Fildraw waived the £7m that didn't enter the administration agreements, I'm saying they waived £7.5m on the £10m ... I believe the settlement figure for Fildraw was closer to £2.5m.

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

It does raise the question as to how BluMarble was paid though?

No it doesn't - it was paid via the ED loan on the 7th September. So it was paid via the club some point between the 7th September and 24th September 2018.

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

BWFC2019 books show neither EDT or Anderson paid in an amount to settle the BluMarble account but I guess it possibly been paid directly by ICI Ltd to BluMarble?

I would imagine that to be legal but no mention of such a transaction (if it happened?) is noted in ICI Ltd accounts for either September 2018 or 2019.

INNER CIRCLE INVESTMENTS LTD filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

Its not in there because it was via BWFC2019 via the ED Loan.... there were no accounts after the administration, so it was never disclosed other than the settlement of charge via companies house.

2 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

Yer a know, but it does make it less straight forward and enables other parties to get preferential bid time.. He was desperate to sell the ground and would have walked away with the money tied up in consultancy fees and we'd have been doubly fooked

fair enough, you might be right

he could still have attempted to sell it though, the ST certainly weren't in a position to buy it

32 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

And, for that decision, he deserved all the anger he got from supporters

Did you put your hand in your pocket to help pay the staff wages and food because there seems to be a few hypocrites around saying Anderson should have done so when they themselves didn't and whilst both Anderson and themselves had NO legal requirement to do so.

And before anyone says he had a moral responsibility, then don't we all have a moral responsibility to help the poor needy and hungry, yet most of us don't?

The important questions is at what point in proceedings did we cease buttering the hotdogs?

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

It won't be anything like as much as people want to believe.

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

that - but I doubt their was significantly more they could have helped themselves to?

On 06/08/2026 at 12:56, Sluffy said:

Most hatred on here towards Anderson stems from ignorance of how companies work in respect to Company Law and I would suggest also from how Iles and the Supporters Trust both publicly championed Team Holdsworth and demonised Team Anderson at the time (and ever after).

52 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I assume this is aimed at me.

Fwiw I'm not 'defending' Anderson and have even stated a number of times previously that I am not an apologist for him.

I simply state a FACT and that is that the owner (or owners) of a company that is Ltd are LIMITED financially to the value of the equity that they have put into the business.

A shareholder’s liability is limited to the amount they originally invested into the business.

Set up a private limited company: Types of limited company - GOV.UK

If you or anyone else can't grasp that, then that's your problem and not that I am in someway desperately seeking attention?

Anderson was NOT required to bankrupt himself to pay the wages at the club.

The club being a separate entity in law.

The staff and players contracts were with BWFAC Ltd or Burnden Leisure Ltd and not Kenneth Anderson Esquire.

BWFAC Ltd or Burnden Leisure Ltd were the ones that paid the wages and in the end their expenditure was more than their income and they could not do so.

You can get as angry with me as much as you want but it doesn't change a thing namely Anderson was not required to put his hand in his pocket and he chose not to do so.

Yes aimed at you , I have posted examples of you actually defending Anderson.

You have rightly pointed that Holdsworth was not without blame and to try and prove your point you are deliberately ignoring as much as you can about Anderson because he did not break any laws.

Read the Administrators comments on how he almost scuppered the deal multiple times and it was only the Trust going above and beyond that allowed the club to survive. Or Sharon’s comments on the mess he left behind.

A total cunt who screwed us for every penny he could and was prepared to push the club to the absolute brink to line his own pockets. Your argument that he only did what any business man would do is bollocks.

@DLH has multiple times shown where your points are factually inaccurate.

16 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Did you put your hand in your pocket to help pay the staff wages and food because there seems to be a few hypocrites around saying Anderson should have done so when they themselves didn't and whilst both Anderson and themselves had NO legal requirement to do so.

And before anyone says he had a moral responsibility, then don't we all have a moral responsibility to help the poor needy and hungry, yet most of us don't?

The fact is, Preston North End and Everton were more morally responsible than Ken

Just now, jmjhb said:

The fact is, Preston North End and Everton were more morally responsible than Ken

More than you as well then...

3 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

More than you as well then...

Last time I checked I wasn't a multi-million football club nor the chairman or owner of one...

MJ though, now there's a stand-up guy

Edited Friday at 14:345 days by jmjhb

8 minutes ago, Ani said:

Yes aimed at you , I have posted examples of you actually defending Anderson.

You have rightly pointed that Holdsworth was not without blame and to try and prove your point you are deliberately ignoring as much as you can about Anderson because he did not break any laws.

Read the Administrators comments on how he almost scuppered the deal multiple times and it was only the Trust going above and beyond that allowed the club to survive. Or Sharon’s comments on the mess he left behind.

A total cunt who screwed us for every penny he could and was prepared to push the club to the absolute brink to line his own pockets. Your argument that he only did what any business man would do is bollocks.

@DLH has multiple times shown where your points are factually inaccurate.

Jesus Christ?

Those are statement of facts and/or logic, not me ignoring as much as I can about Anderson ffs!

And what did you expect Sharon to find after the club plunged into debt running at £1m per month and the Administrators simply keeping the business afloat over many months of course the club was going to be a 'do-er up-er' as they say in the estate business.

As for DLH he shot me down for working from the wrong chart - fair enough - but my logic behind what I was saying was correct and he has engaged me on this currently but at the end of the day the Administrator struck out, disallowed. ignored or whatever you want to call it a sum of £7m from both Eddie and Anderson and no matter how he phrases it that stands as a fact.

I'll try to reply to his post in full later.

I'm not an apologist for Anderson - try to get that into your head.

1 minute ago, Sluffy said:

I'll try to reply to his post in full later.

don't

please

10 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Last time I checked I wasn't a multi-million football club nor the chairman of one...

Do you think those that did chip in to the staff wages and food needs were all football clubs and club chairmen..?

Just now, Casino said:

don't

please

You know you love it when I do.

I'll keep it as brief as I can.

42 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

And before anyone says he had a moral responsibility, then don't we all have a moral responsibility to help the poor needy and hungry, yet most of us don't?

What about if we pay MADMAX?

6 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Do you think those that did chip in to the staff wages and food needs were all football clubs and club chairmen..?

I didn't buy the bond either. Shit fan, me.

3 hours ago, DirtySanchez said:

Where's that video of him chasing his papers all over the car park 😃

What a time to be alive.

2 hours ago, Sweep said:

Obviously, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I can see why some were sort of happy enough with him originally.

The fact he rinsed Cardiff for £6M for Madine, is to be admired though

I guess we'll never really get to the bottom of how much he and his ghastly son took out of the club, once they realised it wasn't going to be a simple 12 month "flip"

Added to the fact we got promoted and stayed up under his initial ownership.

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

You know you love it when I do.

I'll keep it as brief as I can.

I'd rather you didn't, on case you miss out an important bit. You fill your boots.....

54 minutes ago, Casino said:

The ACV doesn't/didn't prevent the sale of the ground

ACVs aren't worth the paper they are written on

The Trust could offer £x amount for the ground

I could offer £x-20m

My offer could be legitimately accepted

2 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Added to the fact we got promoted and stayed up under his initial ownership.

We're still paying off those unpaid rates to the council

Just now, jmjhb said:

I didn't buy the bond either. Shit fan, me.

It's not about you being a good or bad fan it was about your continuing the hypocrisy of calling out someone who had no legal obligation to contribute to the staff wages and food needs whilst you in exactly the same situation clearly didn't do so yourself.

I'm not blaming you for not doing - that was your choice - the same choice Anderson had when he did pay the wages out of his own pocket.

You might find it repugnant, I might find it repugnant too but he had no legal obligation to do so and didn't.

That was his right to do no matter what we may think.

4 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I'd rather you didn't, on case you miss out an important bit. You fill your boots.....

Cheers mate - will do!

2 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

It's not about you being a good or bad fan it was about your continuing the hypocrisy of calling out someone who had no legal obligation to contribute to the staff wages and food needs whilst you in exactly the same situation clearly didn't do so yourself.

I'm not blaming you for not doing - that was your choice - the same choice Anderson had when he did pay the wages out of his own pocket.

You might find it repugnant, I might find it repugnant too but he had no legal obligation to do so and didn't.

That was his right to do no matter what we may think.

I think the moral responsibility of the owner/chairman and a random supporter are somewhat different here.

I might have put a fiver in. Honestly can't remember, I've slept since then.

Edited Friday at 15:085 days by jmjhb