Ken Anderson - update.

MartinBWFC wrote:BBCRMsport

It's understood The PFA have stepped in to help resolve the Bolton Wanderers pay dispute. 

Go on then Sluffy why has he gone against his word yet again?

Who said he has?

It's hardly takes the brainpower of Einstein to think the players union might be involved in a players pay dispute is it?

It's better to let the facts emerge first than jump to all sorts of wrong conclusions, don't you think - you know the saying about fools rush in and all that!

karlypants wrote:

DEANO82 wrote:Players still haven't been paid yet.

Good. They are all shit anyway!

We need to stay up though Karly simple as that and this nonsense really isn't helping.

Millionaire footballers or not, if a rich tax exile keeps failing to pay what he contractually owes they have every right to be pissed off. Anyone who claims they wouldn't is a pushover.

Iles:

Not sure what time all banks close - but my branch definitely is. And I understand from sources in the #bwfc dressing room there has been no payment of the November salary.

Uh oh. Ken talking bollocks. Well I never.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Uh oh. Ken talking bollocks. Well I never.

The day after Ken uses the club website to say he isnt a liar.

You couldn't make this shit up

Sluffy wrote:Dear God!

Anderson is a secured creditor of the club - he MUST have put money into it - it's there in black and white ffs!!!

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

As for your "theory" of everything else - just laughable and rooted in your bias and prejudice.

I think you'll find, Sluffy, that this was the money Eddie agreed to lend KA immediately before Eddie died.

There's been misinformation about the club for the last twenty years and its never, to my knowledge, been the club that was responsible for it. I hope I'm not being unfair but, whilst I took no exception to the main thrust of KA's 's comments yesterday, there was  one particular element that I didn't think was accurate. It worried me.

Ken has offered to pay them 50% and the rest at some point on the future when things improve.

And he’s a man of his word so why not hey?

Sluffy wrote:Dear God!

Anderson is a secured creditor of the club - he MUST have put money into it - it's there in black and white ffs!!!

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

As for your "theory" of everything else - just laughable and rooted in your bias and prejudice.

You clearly don't understand Charge Registrations on an asset owner do you.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Dear God!

Anderson is a secured creditor of the club - he MUST have put money into it - it's there in black and white ffs!!!

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

As for your "theory" of everything else - just laughable and rooted in your bias and prejudice.

I think you'll find, Sluffy, that this was the money Eddie agreed to lend KA immediately before Eddie died.

There are two charges on the clubs assets at the time the BluMarble loan was settled, one for Moonshift and one for Anderson.

wanderlust wrote:You clearly don't understand Charge Registrations on an asset owner do you.

Feel free to enlighten me.

Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

Climb out sluffy.

Kane57 wrote:Ken has offered to pay them 50% and the rest at some point on the future when things improve.

A bit late of me but thank you for letting us know the inside story as soon as you had access to it last night.

Sluffy wrote:

Kane57 wrote:Ken has offered to pay them 50% and the rest at some point on the future when things improve.

A bit late of me but thank you for letting us know the inside story as soon as you had access to it last night.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Climb out sluffy.

I was brought up to have good manners.

Sluffy wrote:I was brought up to have good manners.

I don't remember being thanked when my mole broke the story that Parky had been sacked.

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

If that was the case - and clearly it wasn't - then the charge would have been 'satisfied' when he repaid himself.  The charge is still 'live' and thus still owing to Anderson - ie he has loaned the club money from himself and that money is still owing.

If it was ED's money the charge would be showing to him (there is as I stated a new charge created at the time of Anderson's charge, to Moonshift/Eddie), so its not Eddie's money at all - as the charge is for Ken Anderson.

You clearly pretend you know a lot - but clearly you don't - you just have you agenda and prejudice and bend the facts to fit your story.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

If that was the case - and clearly it wasn't - then the charge would have been 'satisfied' when he repaid himself.  The charge is still 'live' and thus still owing to Anderson - ie he has loaned the club money from himself and that money is still owing.

If it was ED's money the charge would be showing to him (there is as I stated a new charge created at the time of Anderson's charge, to Moonshift/Eddie), so its not Eddie's money at all - as the charge is for Ken Anderson.

You clearly pretend you know a lot - but clearly you don't - you just have you agenda and prejudice and bend the facts to fit your story.

I think ED (or Moonshift/Fildraw) lent the money to repay Blumarble to Ken Anderson personally. When the BM loan was repaid out of these funds, KA took a similar charge against Burnden Leisure to the one BM had. So Burnden Leisure instead of owing BM £4m, now owes £4m to KA which KA in turn owes to ED's estate. I expect its possible that the terms of the £10m Fildraw loan may have been changed as part of the arrangement.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

If that was the case - and clearly it wasn't - then the charge would have been 'satisfied' when he repaid himself.  The charge is still 'live' and thus still owing to Anderson - ie he has loaned the club money from himself and that money is still owing.

If it was ED's money the charge would be showing to him (there is as I stated a new charge created at the time of Anderson's charge, to Moonshift/Eddie), so its not Eddie's money at all - as the charge is for Ken Anderson.

You clearly pretend you know a lot - but clearly you don't - you just have you agenda and prejudice and bend the facts to fit your story.

I think ED (or Moonshift/Fildraw) lent the money to repay Blumarble to Ken Anderson personally. When the BM loan was repaid out of these funds, KA took a similar charge against Burnden Leisure to the one BM had. So Burnden Leisure instead of owing BM £4m, now owes £4m to KA which KA in turn owes to ED's estate. I expect its possible that the terms of the £10m Fildraw loan may have been changed as part of the arrangement.

Yes I'm sure all that is correct.

However it is still KA's money that he's put into the club - just the same as if KA had borrowed the money from say the bank to pay off BM.

If for whatever reason the club can't pay KA back in time for the loan to be settled, he will still owe Eddie Davies / Moonshift the money - so he will have to sell off his personal assets to settle the debt - which in the case will be handing over the ownership of the club - which he values at around £5 million plus apparently.

So on paper at least he stands to lose an asset he owns - set against the ability of the club to repay his loan back to him in order to settle ED's loan to him - or his ability to raise enough funds elsewhere to satisfy the loan from Eddie.

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

If that was the case - and clearly it wasn't - then the charge would have been 'satisfied' when he repaid himself.  The charge is still 'live' and thus still owing to Anderson - ie he has loaned the club money from himself and that money is still owing.

If it was ED's money the charge would be showing to him (there is as I stated a new charge created at the time of Anderson's charge, to Moonshift/Eddie), so its not Eddie's money at all - as the charge is for Ken Anderson.

You clearly pretend you know a lot - but clearly you don't - you just have you agenda and prejudice and bend the facts to fit your story.

I think ED (or Moonshift/Fildraw) lent the money to repay Blumarble to Ken Anderson personally. When the BM loan was repaid out of these funds, KA took a similar charge against Burnden Leisure to the one BM had. So Burnden Leisure instead of owing BM £4m, now owes £4m to KA which KA in turn owes to ED's estate. I expect its possible that the terms of the £10m Fildraw loan may have been changed as part of the arrangement.

Yes I'm sure all that is correct.

However it is still KA's money that he's put into the club - just the same as if KA had borrowed the money from say the bank to pay off BM.  

If for whatever reason the club can't pay KA back in time for the loan to be settled, he will still owe Eddie Davies / Moonshift the money - so he will have to sell off his personal assets to settle the debt - which in the case will be handing over the ownership of the club - which he values at around £5 million plus apparently.

So on paper at least he stands to lose an asset he owns - set against the ability of the club to repay his loan back to him in order to settle ED's loan to him - or his ability to raise enough funds elsewhere to satisfy the loan from Eddie.

Good point well made, Sluffy.

Something tells me that Marc Iles has been spying on Nuts and nicking my homework. He's still keeping stum, though, on the probable destination of Ken's 525K (before tax) consultancy fee and so is his  'mate' at the Daily Mail.

Clue No 1 has already been explained but anyone interested can find chapter and verse in the accounts of Inner Circle Investments here:

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

Take a look at the cost of its investment in Burnden Leisure



Clue No. 2 is here:

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

Take a quick look at the Progress Report on the liquidation of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd


Clue No. 3 is here:

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

Take a look at the accounts of Sports Shield Investments Ltd for 2016, 2017 and 2018 (filed 3 days  ago).

Some might be curious about how an 'investment company' (with one employee, Dean Holdsworth) has managed to accumulate and distribute so much cash without ever having any investments on its balance sheet.

Clue No.4 is here:

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

Sports  Shield Ltd - Another one man company with minimal share capital but 312K on its balance sheet at 31 March 2017.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Bolton. Pay solution in air. Pfa to pick up HALF of tab. Anderson the other half. Needs to be in fast. Players can walk if in default much longer.