Bolton Wanderers Fans Forum

Last Match: Ipswich 0-0 Bolton
Next Match: Bolton v Derby - Sat 3PM - listen live here
Radio Nuts Appeal Details
Eddie Davies Obituary Details

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Accounts for Inner Circle Investments (Ken's Company!)

Accounts for Inner Circle Investments (Ken's Company!)

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
I've been a bit busy for the last few days so I've not had time to post this up until now but a few days back the 'short version' of the company's accounts up to 30th Sept, 2017 (after buying Holdsworth's shares from the SSBWFC liquidator) was filed at Companies House.

What it seems to say as far as I can make out was that ICI added assets of £472,255 which I take it was the amount paid to the liquidator for Holdsworth's half share in the club.

It also shows that there were £70,277 of disposals too (or about 15% of the £472,255).

It would seem the Mr Anderson financed the purchase by long term borrowing,  as there are no charges shown on the company at Companies House it could well be that he put the money in himself.

Also as the accounts show a loss of £70,277 (which seems a bit of a coincidence!) it is a reasonable guess that the 15% of the share ownership as been 'gifted' to someone from ICI - a family member perhaps - Lee possibly?

Two final tit-bits are that if ICI sells the club before 1st Sept, 2018 it an additional purchase consideration of £250,000 falls due - presumably a further payment to the liquidator (to be passed on to Blumarble?) and lastly that another (golden share) in ICI was issued on 22nd December - but with it being outside the accounting period nothing more is said about it.

The 'large' link below should show the accounts but if it doesn't work for you, you can find them from the Companies House beta site.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Travelodge


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
George says hi.

And you owe him £1200 in consultancy fees for plagiarising his work.

Cheers.

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:George says hi.

And you owe him £1200 in consultancy fees for plagiarising his work.

Cheers.
Who is George and are you Alan Partridge?

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
George Bower maybe - a financial advisor formerly of the ST?

Surely sluffy wouldnt plagiarise from an ST affiliate after all thats been said...

Travelodge


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
Mr Bower used to protect his tweets but he's unlocked them now.

Take a look for yourself, take note of the timeline and then decide if any skullduggery has taken place, ie has anyone nicked someone else's work and decided to pass it off as his own on a site he runs.

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Travelodge


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
Cheers BTID.

I always knew you were one of us really.

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Cheers BTID.

I always knew you were one of us really.
:sick:

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
From how I interpret this, Sluffy is simply providing the info to the forum members.  The same as most Bolton info is taken from another source.

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Shame he couldn't give the forum a mention at the same time! Very Happy

Travelodge


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
"What it seems to say as far as I can make out" is a million miles away from "Here's something written by George Bower on Twitter which I am reproducing here."


He nicked it and didn't credit the guy who did all the hard work, ie my mate George.


That's plagiarism.


Come on....press the "Ban Bread" button so we can all get back to normality.


I just wanted to make my point and I've done it.

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Good point, well made. 

Welcome back Bread!

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Bread, I thought you would be over us by now.

Clearly not! Laughing

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Bread, I thought you would be over us by now.

Clearly not! Laughing
Surely not! What about his chip van?

Boggersbelief

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Even I miss breadman. And Scott

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Even I miss breadman. And Scott
Scott came back,then pissed off again.

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Is Travelodge a reference to his sleeping arrangements since Mrs B kicked him out?

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Is Travelodge a reference to his sleeping arrangements since Mrs B kicked him out?
Very Happy He’s sleeping with his dog Humphrey now.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:George says hi.

And you owe him £1200 in consultancy fees for plagiarising his work.

Cheers.

Hahaha!!!

How fucking pathetic some folk are!

Yes the basis of the opening post of this thread is from George Bower - but look again at what I wrote, I never once claimed it to be my work - did I?

In fact the only reason I bothered to pass on the information is because -

1 - George addressed the information as "For the 1/2 doz people potentially interested, Inner Circle Investments (ICI) filed their accounts this week" - which considering I've posted his comments in similar respect on previous occasions - which I may add he knew full well about - and we had discussed in the past by private messaging (I refer particularly to our message conversation on the Continuum account dated 7th December, 2016, and your general views of not wanting to attract forum abuse in our messaging on your current twitter account in mid September, 2017) - I reasonably considered that not only did I believe included me - but also that he would rather I didn't attribute him as the source of the comments!

and,

2 - George's tweets had already been in the public domain for a number of days already, so I wasn't aiming to plagiarise anything but merely put it into a wider domain to be seen by Wanderers fan - whether or not they are pro or anti the ST - as quite frankly that is completely irrelevant to what was being reported.


I had to laugh when I saw that of the two people to have commented to George's tweet shown above on this thread, one was a Mr Phillip Shortland - of whom I have had no dealings with whatsoever (knowingly anyway), who blocked the Nuts twitter account many, many months ago, presumably because of something I posted on Nuts!  How utterly childish is that?

If he doesn't like whatever it was I posted, then either post to refute it, or simply stop reading my views and opinions - don't continue to voyeur at what I'm posting on Nuts then presumably tittle-tattle behind a 'closed' twitter account to others about it - how snidey and utterly creepy is that?

The other twitter responder being Ian Firth (perhaps better known by some as Super White Smurf) - and again someone I've never knowingly had direct dealings with - who states that I "normally takes every opportunity to post negative comments about you on various websites based on untrue assumptions taken as fact".

Which of course is a complete pack of lies.

I of course would welcome Mr 'Smurf' to find just one single reference that I have ever made being disrespectful in anyway to George - there must be hundreds the way he talks about all sorts of 'various websites' where I've supposedly done this - but I'll tell you now he (or anyone else come to that) won't find a single one because I simply haven't done it.  I'm fairly sure George knows that too.

Quite the reverse in fact, several times both pre and post his ST Board membership position I have attempted to get George to post on Nuts - for the benefit of us all - as all views are welcome on here - I've never censored or banned anyone for holding a different view to my own - ever.

So how about it George - and your two twitter mates too - we all support the same club - albeit in different ways - why not reason with each other on here - where there is a much wider (and interested audience) rather than act somewhat precious and offended on twitter?

You may even find you like it on here!

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Is Breaders allowed back then?  Very Happy

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
So as the partial accounts are vague and ambiguous is it fair to say that the short version is that Ken has given away a chunk of the club to "an unknown person", possibly his son, and has financed his tenure as owner with loans against club assets rather than his own money?

In effect that would be taking the club's assets and rather than use them as collateral to build the team, use them to buy shares that he then gives to someone, possibly family and friends?

If it's not a fair summary, would it be possible to explain why without adding a personal attack and a lecture on morality?

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Is Breaders allowed back then?  Very Happy
He popped in to make a point. Very Happy
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Soul Kitchen

avatar
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
He couldn't make a brew!!

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:So as the partial accounts are vague and ambiguous is it fair to say that the short version is that Ken has given away a chunk of the club to "an unknown person", possibly his son, and has financed his tenure as owner with loans against club assets rather than his own money?

In effect that would be taking the club's assets and rather than use them as collateral to build the team, use them to buy shares that he then gives to someone, possibly family and friends?

If it's not a fair summary, would it be possible to explain why without adding a personal attack and a lecture on morality?

Wrong.

Why do you constantly persist in stating that Anderson has funded his purchase of Holdsworth's shares from the liquidator from the clubs (Burnden Leisure Ltd) accounts???

If he had there would be a charge against ICI as security that the loan would be repaid.  There is no charge from anyone against ICI - otherwise it would be shown on the Companies House records - just like the BluMarble loan is shown as a charge against Burnden Leisure.

Of course it could have been an unsecured loan but nobody as been aware of the club having the best part of half a million laying about doing nothing, nor any sale of assets / or private investment into the club again to the tune of half a million.

So where did this half million supposedly have come from to give to ICI (as an unsecured loan) when the club as clearly not had the cash available, nor sold any assets (also remember around this time HMRC was chasing the club for outstanding tax debts)?

The sale of Madine came after the purchase of the shares, so it couldn't have come from there and the Championship instalment payments were received in January (iirc) which in turn were used to pay off the HMRC.

So if the club couldn't possibly have come up with half million and nobody has loaned it to ICI (otherwise there would have been a charge against there assets to secure the loan) then where else could it have come from but Anderson's own pocket?

I get that you don't like Anderson but persistently making stuff up / jumping to unwarranted and wild conclusions, without a single shred of proof to back up your position and make your views seem somehow justifiable, is absolutely ridiculous.

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:but persistently making stuff up / jumping to unwarranted and wild conclusions, without a single shred of proof to back up your position and make your views seem somehow justifiable, is absolutely ridiculous.


It's the backbone of every forum in the land.

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:but persistently making stuff up / jumping to unwarranted and wild conclusions, without a single shred of proof to back up your position and make your views seem somehow justifiable, is absolutely ridiculous.


It's the backbone of every forum in the land.

You would know, wouldn't you! Laughing

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:You would know, wouldn't you! Laughing

You gobshite. Give me your measurements so I can have a suitcase made.

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:You would know, wouldn't you! Laughing

You gobshite. Give me your measurements so I can have a suitcase made.
Laughing

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:You would know, wouldn't you! Laughing

You gobshite. Give me your measurements so I can have a suitcase made.

Big error Nat, you should have logged out and back in again as Michael Bolton  Very Happy

Hipster_Nebula

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Bring back Eddie Davies.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum