Bolton Wanderers Fans Forum

Last Match: Boro 2-0 Bolton
Next Match: Ipswich v Bolton - Sat 3PM - listen live here
Stephen Darby Retires from football Details
Eddie Davies bailed out Bolton days before his death Details

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » OFFICIAL - No Administration, No points deduction, No embargo!

OFFICIAL - No Administration, No points deduction, No embargo!

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Ken Anderson - "I am also pleased to confirm that the club did not go into administration and there are no points deductions or embargo implications".

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

xmiles

avatar
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
Phew!

luckyPeterpiper

avatar
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.
You think it's a strange move from BluMarble? Really? How is that any stranger than Anderson signing a contract, then saying he sees no reason why the payments won't be met just days before the due date, then reneging on the deal and refusing to talk to them which inevitably caused the whole mess?
Now that is strange especially for someone who claims to be at least competent in business - but perhaps it's not because he's done it before and is widely known to be a twat.

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
You seem very angry this week. Did someone set fire to your armchair?

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:You seem very angry this week. Did someone set fire to your armchair?

Very Happy

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:You seem very angry this week. Did someone set fire to your armchair?
I'm fuming.

Thought Iles' tweet about meeting Parky and Parky asking him if he'd had a quiet international break was funny though.

Nigelbwfc


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.
You think it's a strange move from BluMarble? Really? How is that any stranger than Anderson signing a contract, then saying he sees no reason why the payments won't be met just days before the due date, then reneging on the deal and refusing to talk to them which inevitably caused the whole mess?
Now that is strange especially for someone who claims to be at least competent in business - but perhaps it's not because he's done it before and is widely known to be a twat.
I was on holiday when all this broke out.

I've not seen the piece where it says Anderson signed a contract and the reneged on the deal with Blu Marble. Can you point me in the right direction? 

As for Anderson being a "twat" (your words), then that's music to my ears. We've needed a "twat" at the helm for along time.

wanderlust

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 must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.
You think it's a strange move from BluMarble? Really? How is that any stranger than Anderson signing a contract, then saying he sees no reason why the payments won't be met just days before the due date, then reneging on the deal and refusing to talk to them which inevitably caused the whole mess?
Now that is strange especially for someone who claims to be at least competent in business - but perhaps it's not because he's done it before and is widely known to be a twat.
I was on holiday when all this broke out.

I've not seen the piece where it says Anderson signed a contract and the reneged on the deal with Blu Marble. Can you point me in the right direction? 

As for Anderson being a "twat" (your words), then that's music to my ears. We've needed a "twat" at the helm for along time.
There were several - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which includes the lines "Anderson said he had an offer for the full amount plus interest turned down – but sources in the BluMarble camp denied his claim."


I think we can agree that the BM version of events is more likely to be the truth and that Anderson didn't cough up as per the contract or they wouldn't have had a case to take to court in the first place would they? 


Anyhow, if someone owed you money and they offered to pay the full amount plus interest, would you turn it down? I don't think so.


As regards the "twat" comment - if you're interpreting that as someone who is careful with the club's money I'd be inclined to agree after the Gartside debacle, however a) we don't know yet if Anderson is being careful with the money or simply selling off the club's assets to prop up his own controlling position until he can get a big payoff and b) there are much richer "twats" who can actually afford to run a Championship club so he's not the twat I'd have by choice. I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that Anderson needs to sell out to a richer "twat" now - especially as Anderson has now pointed to a £13million income deficit on the horizon. Hopefully our American friend is still an option despite Anderson hanging around for a bit longer.

observer


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[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 must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.
You think it's a strange move from BluMarble? Really? How is that any stranger than Anderson signing a contract, then saying he sees no reason why the payments won't be met just days before the due date, then reneging on the deal and refusing to talk to them which inevitably caused the whole mess?
Now that is strange especially for someone who claims to be at least competent in business - but perhaps it's not because he's done it before and is widely known to be a twat.
I was on holiday when all this broke out.

I've not seen the piece where it says Anderson signed a contract and the reneged on the deal with Blu Marble. Can you point me in the right direction? 

As for Anderson being a "twat" (your words), then that's music to my ears. We've needed a "twat" at the helm for along time.
There were several - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which includes the lines "Anderson said he had an offer for the full amount plus interest turned down – but sources in the BluMarble camp denied his claim."


I think we can agree that the BM version of events is more likely to be the truth and that Anderson didn't cough up as per the contract or they wouldn't have had a case to take to court in the first place would they? 


Anyhow, if someone owed you money and they offered to pay the full amount plus interest, would you turn it down? I don't think so.


As regards the "twat" comment - if you're interpreting that as someone who is careful with the club's money I'd be inclined to agree after the Gartside debacle, however a) we don't know yet if Anderson is being careful with the money or simply selling off the club's assets to prop up his own controlling position until he can get a big payoff and b) there are much richer "twats" who can actually afford to run a Championship club so he's not the twat I'd have by choice. I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that Anderson needs to sell out to a richer "twat" now - especially as Anderson has now pointed to a £13million income deficit on the horizon. Hopefully our American friend is still an option despite Anderson hanging around for a bit longer.
Strictly a guess... and someone else mentioned it before... but the terms of payment to BM was the problem.  KA wanted to extend payments and BM wanted it all or would move to bring the club to administration.  It's a reasonable guess... but we should also remember it was DeanO who borrowed the money initially and took the rather usurious interest charges (at least we are led to believe the interest percentage was high).

Whatever... we came out okay and then fell flat on the pitch. Watching the highlights (if they are really that at all), one can see how much quicker QPR was against us.  That's troubling... for a bottom team to outplay us at home.  Though many disagree, Boro and Ipswich may hasten our descent to the bottom six.  Thankfully we started out well this season.  Parky needs to get it right and to get the best out of what he has.

wanderlust

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:

There were several - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which includes the lines "Anderson said he had an offer for the full amount plus interest turned down – but sources in the BluMarble camp denied his claim."


I think we can agree that the BM version of events is more likely to be the truth and that Anderson didn't cough up as per the contract or they wouldn't have had a case to take to court in the first place would they? 


Anyhow, if someone owed you money and they offered to pay the full amount plus interest, would you turn it down? I don't think so.


As regards the "twat" comment - if you're interpreting that as someone who is careful with the club's money I'd be inclined to agree after the Gartside debacle, however a) we don't know yet if Anderson is being careful with the money or simply selling off the club's assets to prop up his own controlling position until he can get a big payoff and b) there are much richer "twats" who can actually afford to run a Championship club so he's not the twat I'd have by choice. I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that Anderson needs to sell out to a richer "twat" now - especially as Anderson has now pointed to a £13million income deficit on the horizon. Hopefully our American friend is still an option despite Anderson hanging around for a bit longer.
Strictly a guess... and someone else mentioned it before... but the terms of payment to BM was the problem.  KA wanted to extend payments and BM wanted it all or would move to bring the club to administration.  It's a reasonable guess... but we should also remember it was DeanO who borrowed the money initially and took the rather usurious interest charges (at least we are led to believe the interest percentage was high).
You mean the repayment terms that Anderson himself had renegotiated after the first repayment was missed?

Just speculation but what do you know about Anderson's role in Deano taking on the original loan? We should also remember that Deano had twice tried to save the club before Anderson became his partner.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
The BluMarble loan was taken out with Holdsworth's SSBWFC, and so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed.

Holdsworth had set up a different agreement between SSBWFC and Burnden Leisure - so therefore KA had no dealings at all with BM directly until the shit hit the fan over Holdsworth's SSBWFC default to BM.




Travelodge


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
Anderson renegotiated the payment structure and agreed to the Sep 01st 2018 deadline for full & final settlement of the debt.

It was nothing to do with Holdsworth.

He was already long gone.

Stop telling lies to defend your hero.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Anderson renegotiated the payment structure and agreed to the Sep 01st 2018 deadline for full & final settlement of the debt.

It was nothing to do with Holdsworth.

He was already long gone.

Stop telling lies to defend your hero.

I'm answering Wanderlust post and telling no lies whatsoever?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
You mean the repayment terms that Anderson himself had renegotiated after the first repayment was missed?

Just speculation but what do you know about Anderson's role in Deano taking on the original loan? We should also remember that Deano had twice tried to save the club before Anderson became his partner.

Holdsworth missed his first repayment to BluMarble on the 26th March, 2016 - long before Anderson ever got involved - it wasn't even his contract to be involved in, as I've said above the parties to the contract were SSBWFC and BluMarble - nothing at all to do with Inner Circle Investments or Burnden Leisure (both of which Anderson had/has an interest in).

Anyway, shouldn't you be putting people straight on twitter, oh wait don't tell me you've been banned for being abusive yet again!

Travelodge


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.

Thank you, I'll reply back to you in short words also - that wasn't what Wanderlust was talking about (he even set it in context by going on to talk about Holdsworth taking out the loan and what involvement Anderson had!).

That's why I answered his remarks factually.

You on the other hand obviously misread what was written and gone off half-cocked and have clearly tried to cover up your mistake by attempting to ridicule me.

I noticed you didn't answer why you're no longer tweeting right now - did you?

Enforced break again perhaps?



observer


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.
I believe your rhetoric using the words "lying and obfuscation" is overblown.  What I referred to was the usurious rate that DeanO used to buy the club.  Everything stems from that interest which piled up and was thus described (and yes, I don't know the true facts... which is why I said "GUESS")... AND YES... Anderson renegotiated... but from a position of weakness.  YES... he missed and is responsible... but to me,  the fault lies in DeanO's takeover and the consequences thereafter... which we continue to owe to this day.  Is it Anderson's responsibility to pay his players on time?  Yes.  Should he take it out of his pocket?  Yes.  No billionaire has shown up to buy the club... so be thankful we are still in existence.  Was BM entitled to their money?  Yes.  KA has tried to delay payment after payment and that is wrong.  I'm surprised he has not sold the team and walked away with his profit (which he is entitled to do).  Then again, I'm glad we are not at the bottom of the table... but fully expect to be bottom six after the next 4 games.  I truly hope I am wrong about the next few games.

wanderlust

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:I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.

Thank you, I'll reply back to you in short words also - that wasn't what Wanderlust was talking about (he even set it in context by going on to talk about Holdsworth taking out the loan and what involvement Anderson had!).

That's why I answered his remarks factually.

You on the other hand obviously misread what was written and gone off half-cocked and have clearly tried to cover up your mistake by attempting to ridicule me.

I noticed you didn't answer why you're no longer tweeting right now - did you?

Enforced break again perhaps?



That's not true. I said Anderson had renegotiated, but as regards his potential role in setting up the loan in the first place I clearly qualified the suggestion by opening with the words "just speculation" as a separate and subsequent comment. In no way was I contextualising the factual part about it being Anderson's deal - it was merely, as you would put it, just a thought.

At least we're all agreed that the deal Anderson reneged on was the deal Anderson made.

Travelodge


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
Obs - Wasn't talking to you.

Lunatic in Slough - Thanks for proving my point about obfuscation.

I'm done now.

You won't be hearing from me again.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[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 must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.

Thank you, I'll reply back to you in short words also - that wasn't what Wanderlust was talking about (he even set it in context by going on to talk about Holdsworth taking out the loan and what involvement Anderson had!).

That's why I answered his remarks factually.

You on the other hand obviously misread what was written and gone off half-cocked and have clearly tried to cover up your mistake by attempting to ridicule me.

I noticed you didn't answer why you're no longer tweeting right now - did you?

Enforced break again perhaps?



That's not true. I said Anderson had renegotiated, but as regards his potential role in setting up the loan in the first place I clearly qualified the suggestion by opening with the words "just speculation" as a separate and subsequent comment. In no way was I contextualising the factual part about it being Anderson's deal - it was merely, as you would put it, just a thought.

At least we're all agreed that the deal Anderson reneged on was the deal Anderson made.

He could only renegotiate something he was going to be paying for if he was going to be a party to the deal and clearly as long as the original contract was between SSBWFC and BM, he clearly couldn't do that. So it's irrelevant how many payments SSBWFC missed until that point was reached.

As for reneging on the deal, neither you, me or anyone other than the parties involved know what was agreed and what the payment schedule was. The only fact we know for sure is that BM have agreed settlement on their loan.


Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Obs - Wasn't talking to you.

Lunatic in Slough - Thanks for proving my point about obfuscation.

I'm done now.

You won't be hearing from me again.

If only that last sentence was true.

Opened a new twitter account then - wonder how long they'll let you keep this one for before they ban you yet again?

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
In buying Deano out and thereby taking a majority shareholding, Anderson took on and renegotiated the loan. Deano was never in the position to use the club's assets to settle the loan. Anderson is.

T.R.O.Y


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.

Is there any evidence to says this version of events is inaccurate?

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:In buying Deano out and thereby taking a majority shareholding, Anderson took on and renegotiated the loan. Deano was never in the position to use the club's assets to settle the loan. Anderson is.

If that was the case then how was he ever in a position to secure the loan to his own personal owned company SSBWFC charged on the clubs assets in the first place then?

BM's loan was to Holdsworth and thus Holdsworth responsibility to pay it back - not Anderson's.

It was only when BM started to apply for compulsory liquidation of SSBWFC that Anderson ever got involved - and not after the first missed loan repayment as you clearly said above and which I responded to.

Travelodge


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel
FFS....I swore I wouldn't do this but let's try again.

Dean Holdsworth bought shares in BWFC via his company SSBWFC or whatever the fuck it was called.

Ken Anderson then acquired these shares to take over sole control & ownership of the club.

When he acquired the shares he also took on the associated debts & liabilities.

He then went to BM & renegotiated the terms & agreed to settle the debt in full by 01/09/2018.

It was his fucking debt.

He effectively bought it from DH.

He signed up for it willingly.

He's not a victim here.

Which bit of that is apparently so fucking hard to understand?

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:FFS....I swore I wouldn't do this but let's try again.

Dean Holdsworth bought shares in BWFC via his company SSBWFC or whatever the fuck it was called.

Ken Anderson then acquired these shares to take over sole control & ownership of the club.

When he acquired the shares he also took on the associated debts & liabilities.

He then went to BM & renegotiated the terms & agreed to settle the debt in full by 01/09/2018.

It was his fucking debt.

He effectively bought it from DH.

He signed up for it willingly.

He's not a victim here.

Which bit of that is apparently so fucking hard to understand?

I assume you are addressing me?

Putting to one side your explanation is fundamentally flawed in that the contract was between SSBWFC and BM and once SSBWFC was compulsory liquidated the contract could no longer be enforce and was thus invalid - so Anderson could not and did not take on SSBWFC'S associated debts and liabilities. He didn't 'buy it' from Holdsworth at all! Do you even know what you are saying???

That's why a new contract was constructed whereby BluMarble was forced to accept only £4 million of the £5 million what they loaned to Holdsworth was now negotiable with Anderson because that's all the club ever received from Holdsworth's SSBWFC.  And that's why presumably they have sued their own legal team who advised them in to entering the initial contract with SSBWFC, to recover their 'lost' million plus interest.

Anyway, the point as always been that we aren't talking about this point in time - only you are.  We are talking about nearly two years earlier when Holdsworth missed his first repayment - which incendently was the only one he was scheduled to make being that it was for full settlement of the loan just sixteen days after it was taken out!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:  It's a reasonable guess... but we should also remember it was DeanO who borrowed the money initially and took the rather usurious interest charges (at least we are led to believe the interest percentage was high).
You mean the repayment terms that Anderson himself had renegotiated after the first repayment was missed?
Just speculation but what do you know about Anderson's role in Deano taking on the original loan? We should also remember that Deano had twice tried to save the club before Anderson became his partner.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Holdsworth missed his first repayment to BluMarble on the 26th March, 2016 [Which was to be for full settlement of the £5 million loan] - long before Anderson ever got involved - it wasn't even his contract to be involved in, as I've said above the parties to the contract were SSBWFC and BluMarble - nothing at all to do with Inner Circle Investments or Burnden Leisure (both of which Anderson had/has an interest in).

Anyway, shouldn't you be putting people straight on twitter, oh wait don't tell me you've been banned for being abusive yet again!

I'm guessing they've blocked you on Twitter for good now?  How many times had they banned you up to now for your persistent abuse, seven was it?

They gave you plenty of chances then.

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Enough. I think we all have to agree to disagree given that we only know one side of the story. Hopefully the full 360 will become apparent in the fullness of time.

T.R.O.Y


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Ad nauseum.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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