Wigan in Administration

Sluffy wrote:

The thing is though is that we DO KNOW what happened we just not certain in a few instances exactly WHY.

Holdsworth took out the BluMarble loan, he had a partner in Gordon who ditched him at the alter, the loan was secured on BWFC assets, the club only received £4m but had assets secured against for £5m, Holdsworth could not service the loan and was ultimately forced into liquidation, Anderson bought Holdsworth ownership shares from the Liquidator, I could go on listing facts for ages - not least that Anderson has still not been charged with anything a year after selling and having all the books gone through with a fine financial toothcomb!!!

You went all in on Anderson being a crook and it's not turned out that way and you can't admit you got it wrong.

The problem is yours not Bob's and mine, you are the one who can't accept the reality because the reality proves you wrong.

You're the one who is unable to move on with life not us!

I'm still sceptical about Gordon being Holdsworth's partner who he ditched at the altar. If BWFC was being given away for nowt, Gordon might have looked at it but was it worth the risk at all, let alone  having Holdsworth as a partner? Not in my book and not in NoKenDo's.

Eddie was willing to give it away but not to any wannabe asset strippers. He knew that assets would need to be sold to keep the club going, but he'd also make sure that's where the money went.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I'm still sceptical about Gordon being Holdsworth's partner who he ditched at the altar. If BWFC was being given away for nowt, Gordon might have looked at it but was it worth the risk at all, let alone  having Holdsworth as a partner? Not in my book and not in NoKenDo's.

Eddie was willing to give it away but not to any wannabe asset strippers. He knew that assets would need to be sold to keep the club going, but he'd also make sure that's where the money went.

Again I agree.

It clearly was contrived to get to the point where Anderson could step in at the last minute, the question is why?  Who planned it to be so and for what reason?

I guess the reason was to give someone 'no choice' but who would that be, Davies, the EFL, the court even?

As for Davies actively selling the club to Holdsworth who had no money but manipulated things so he could use £5m worth of club assets to do so and give him and his 'partner' - who also in your view would be brining nothing to the table either in that you reckon Eddie would have put in the estimated additional running costs of £2.5m - then what is the point of doing that?

Why not hire them as employees instead if that's what he wanted - he would achieve exactly the same, with the same people and with spending the same amount of money he would be spending (and getting a loan on the assets that would be spent within the club and not stripped away someplace else), whilst not giving away control of the club and its future destiny being taken out of his hands?

Why turn the financial taps off at the club one minute and leading HMRC to take the club to court for unpaid tax bills, then in the next minute fanny about installing Holdsworth as the new owner but manipulate things so he had the money from the club to pay the bills anyway?  Eddie could have done that himself without the need for Holdsworth involvement?

And if his intention was to continue funding losses of the tune of £2.5m via a 'front man' who happened to be Anderson, then why bother, he could continue to do that himself without the need to give up half the club to someone he presumably didn't know but surely would have known his history of an eight year directors ban?

It doesn't make any sense does it?

As I say if he wanted Holdsworth and Anderson 'running' the club them have them as employees/consultants/advisors and retain control of the club for a while longer (he's funding it all in your model, whether he owns it or not - so why not continue as owner than in effect give the club away to Holdsworth who is penniless and Anderson who is a known business 'shark - and still pay out of his own pocket for both of them?)

Eddie clearly wanted to sell to Holdsworth for some reason but Holdsworth had no money.  

It seems very contrived for Gordon to step away at the last second and Anderson (who had remarkably just so happened to have passed all the EFL tests the previous day/week/month to be on hand) to step up and 'save' the day.

Something was obviously going on but I can't quite reason out what it actually was?

You can't reason it out, Sluffy, because you haven't got your thinking head on, as Judge Judy might put it.
Its hard to know where to start but I think its best if I don't for the time being. There are other ways to spend the day so lets give it another day or maybe two for you to think about what you've  just written.

Its like nine bob is a headmaster telling off a naughty schoolboy. Sluffy why do you let him speak to you like that?

Norpig wrote:Its like nine bob is a headmaster telling off a naughty schoolboy. Sluffy why do you let him speak to you like that?

I let Wanderlust call me a wanker and try to make out I'm mentally ill for the same reason - they are only words.

I'm really easy going but it if gets to the point where it becomes too much I'll tell them so.

In a way there seems to me at least that Bob and Wanderlust (although worlds apart in class to each other) do share a similarity and that is because they can't let go of the past, Bob because the lack of recognition afforded to Eddie's enormous patronage to the club and how its never been truly recognised - and he is right about this - and Wanderlust who can't accept being wrong and forever has to be locked in at that point even though time flows on.

For me at least I simply accept that life is unfair, people unreasonable and shit happens whether you live your life as a good person or a bad one.  I see it all very much as a game.  I understand that people want to make their mark, justify themselves, right perceived wrongs, think themselves smarter than the rest, be who they are - but so what, we don't actually do anything apart from pass on our genes we inherited from our ancestors to the future generations - empires come and go, values change over time, people die, life still goes on.

To me what went on between Eddie/Holdsworth/Anderson is just a little puzzle for me to play with and try to solve - it doesn't change anything, doesn't make me smart if I did happen to crack it or dumb if I didn't, it's just a little game I've chosen to play for myself - that's all.

Why should I feel the need to get upset if someone tells me I'm stupid - in a sense I am, I'm just wasting time on a conundrum that even if I solved it I have no means of actually proving it to be so nor anyone bothered that I have - nobody cares now do they?

As I say to Wanderlust, why is he so hung up on not being wrong - as only he actually gives a shit about it?  Nobody else does that's for sure.

Clearly Bob and Wanderlust are doing exactly the same that I do but they don't seem to realise that as I see it merely as a game, which I do, they see it as something important and meaningful to them to be doing, to validate themselves in someway - honouring Eddies actions and memory in one case and in the other not losing face at any cost.

Non of it really matters does it?

I can laugh at myself for doing what I do but I've achieved what I believe my reason for being has been for, I've got a lovely daughter who is happy, healthy and with my help, financially secure and hopefully she'll go on to find her nirvana in life - which may not even be the same as mine.

Maybe achieving everyone's everlasting debt of gratitude to Eddie is part of Bob's path on life to his nirvana and being seen as someone who is always right and never wrong is Wanderlust's idea of heaven - and good luck to then if they are but to me (and everyone else) they are entirely meaningless and completely unimportant  - in just the same way of me puzzling on Eddie, Dean and Ken is - but I can see it and I'm afraid they don't see it in that way, to them there is a definite importance for them in what they strive to do.

So if Bob doesn't believe I have my 'thinking' head on and Wanderlust thinks I'm an utter wanker, so what, it doesn't matter a jot to me and that's why I can take criticism/abuse easily and simply laugh at it - until it gets relentless.  At which point I'll either put a stop to it or walk away as I simply don't need to put up with it or justify myself to anyone nor the desire to seek validation from others to attain some form of recognition of who I am or what I do.

I post on here for my own interest and amusement  - don't we all?

Isn't that what it's all about?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:You can't reason it out, Sluffy, because you haven't got your thinking head on, as Judge Judy might put it.
Its hard to know where to start but I think its best if I don't for the time being. There are other ways to spend the day so lets give it another day or maybe two for you to think about what you've  just written.

Thanks Bob but without knowing anything else it's the best I can come up with if you give me two more days or two more decades.

Eddie wanted to sell the club - given his word to his family to do so maybe - but ended up giving it away and still paying for it - I'm sure he wouldn't consider that satisfactory in keeping his promise - I know I wouldn't.

Holdsworth had no money so at best he was always going to be no more than a front man for others - even if he became owner (as we all know he did) he couldn't afford to run it.  

He therefore had to have a backer to put money into keeping the club afloat until it could be turnaround and sold on.

If you reckon Eddie was going to do this via Anderson, then why not do it do it via Holdsworth instead and do away with Dean even needing a partner at all?

If selling the club means giving it free to Holdsworth as a front man and carry on paying for everything behind the scenes - then that isn't 'selling' the club, if that was what his aim was to appease his wife and kids?

If Holdsworth was the 'innocent' patsy in all of this then why charge a whopping 24% interest on a £4m loan to the club from his company when he was only paying 8% on it?

Something doesn't seem to fit right if he was only meant to be some form of a puppet?

If you know the answers then good for you.

Nothings going to change what happened but the BluMarble loan was the catalyst as to all that subsequently followed from that point onwards, even up to the current days where debts have still not been settled.

I just find it curious to know the thinking behind it all, that's all - I'll be no worse off than what I am already now if I never solve the puzzle and no richer if I ever do - so all just a bit of an intellectual game to me, if you will.

Didn't get chance to get on here last night so I have only just seen the relevant posts. A big thanks to both Norpig and Sluffy for explaining the Blumarble situation for me. Everything seems a lot clearer now and I can now see how Holdsworth, far from being a potential saviour of the club, was in fact a complete self serving twat only concerned with enriching himself at the club's expense.
TBH when he first turned up I did suspect it myself. I couldn't think of any other reason he'd turn up here. His time here wasn't particularly successful to say the least.

Hip Priest wrote:Didn't get chance to get on here last night so I have only just seen the relevant posts. A big thanks to both Norpig and Sluffy for explaining the Blumarble situation for me. Everything seems a lot clearer now and I can now see how Holdsworth, far from being a potential saviour of the club, was in fact a complete self serving twat only concerned with enriching himself at the club's expense.
TBH when he first turned up I did suspect it myself. I couldn't think of any other reason he'd turn up here. His time here wasn't particularly successful to say the least.

I wondered if you were going to come back after you'd asked the question and glad that the penny seems to have dropped with Holdsworth.

But how did you figure out that  'His time here wasn't particularly successful to say the least'? Could anything be further from the truth but it was despite Holdsworth not because of him?

The escape from freefall in 2016/17 was a minor miracle and it was down to Ken Anderson with help from Eddie in the background. It was because Anderson had the necessary skills that Eddie agreed to the stupidly named 'Sports Shield consortium' takeover at all and Holdsworth was a part of the deal I expect he'd rather have done without. But imagine the outrage if Eddie had transferred sole ownership to Ken Anderson at the time, with his background. Do you seriously think that would have been good business?

We were always going to be back in freefall if Anderson couldn't find another Sugar Daddy and Holdsworth's involvement remained an obstacle until 31 August 2018 because of the Quantuma/Blumarble deal. 

When Eddie paid off Blumarble in September 2018 he gave Anderson another six months to find Mr Moneybags knowing that the other debts couldn't be paid and that Anderson would do well if he could keep it going that long.

My jaw's still on the floor at Sluffy's notion that Eddie Davies was somehow star struck with Dean Holdsworth.

HP meant his playing career with us.

I'd say his time playing for us was likely to have been very successful for him in terms of the amount he got paid but he didn't contribute enough imo to the comparative success the club had during those years. 

On the whole Colin Todd had a good track record in the players he signed but Holdsworth was possibly his most expensive mistake.

Why, one might wonder, did Holdsworth enjoy so much popularity with the Supporters Trust and still does, it seems, with the 'esteemed' one and Auntie Beeb?

And what of Blumarble? How has it faired after all the shenanigans?

Not too badly actually. It only has two employees (who are also directors) but its accounts are up to date and its continued to make more than decent profits for them.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The escape from freefall in 2016/17 was a minor miracle and it was down to Ken Anderson with help from Eddie in the background. It was because Anderson had the necessary skills that Eddie agreed to the stupidly named 'Sports Shield consortium' takeover at all and Holdsworth was a part of the deal I expect he'd rather have done without. But imagine the outrage if Eddie had transferred sole ownership to Ken Anderson at the time, with his background. Do you seriously think that would have been good business?

We were always going to be back in freefall if Anderson couldn't find another Sugar Daddy and Holdsworth's involvement remained an obstacle until 31 August 2018 because of the Quantuma/Blumarble deal. 

When Eddie paid off Blumarble in September 2018 he gave Anderson another six months to find Mr Moneybags knowing that the other debts couldn't be paid and that Anderson would do well if he could keep it going that long.

My jaw's still on the floor at Sluffy's notion that Eddie Davies was somehow star struck with Dean Holdsworth.

I've no idea how you came to that conclusion Bob?

All Holdsworth could ever be is a front from someone else - the public face that the fans would buy into - certainly worked in Iles and the ST's case, didn't it!

If I followed your reasoning correctly and you believed Holdsworth was allowed to secure BM on BWFC assets because he had no one to back him (Holdsworth himself brought no money to the table) then it could only be Eddie that was the money behind him - would it not?

The only other explanation was that Holdsworth DID have money behind him from someone else - so who could that be?

On the face of it that was Gordon.

But there were also the issue of the £2.5m ongoing running costs to cover trading losses.

If Holdsworth and Gordon was the partnership and Dean had no money, then Gordon would have to provide both.

Maybe the plan was for Gordon to provide the £5m and Eddie to quietly put in the £2.5m to cover the losses until the club was turned around and sold by Gordon/Holdsworth.

However it seems 'odd' that Gordon bailed at the last moment and Anderson parachuted in.  Seems a bit contrived to me, almost as thought that was the plan all along?

Can't imagine Eddie didn't know that otherwise the deal he would have wanted was the same he thought he had with Gordon/Holdsworth, namely the Holdsworth backer (Anderson) would have been the money man behind Dean and Eddie covers the trading losses.

With Gordon/Anderson NOT putting in the £5m then that only left Eddie to do so - and permit the security of Sports Shield BM loan against BWFC assets - so in effect and whether it was intended to be or not, Eddie became the moneyman behind Holdsworth - indeed who else was there?

At this point we then hit the 'brick wall' of only £4m being received by the club (someone we both know did tell me that in all likelihood the loan could have been for £4m but the security demanded be £5m because it would cover the interest charged on the £4m that would be outstanding also if the loan was ultimately defaulted - which is a valid point and which I can accept - indeed from the time of being enlightened on this I've tried hard not to say Holdsworth actually took the money but just that there was a discrepancy between the widely reported at that time as to what was expected to be put into the club to complete the sale and what Anderson reported was received - which he too claimed he expected it to be the full £5m)

Someone, somewhere, around this issue was being somewhat uneconomical with the truth shall we say?

The issue is further compounded (if true) that Holdsworth charged BWFC 24% on the loan to BWFC from his company Sports Shield whilst only paying 8% to the original lender, BM.

So I return to the point as to why have Holdsworth as any part of the final deal at all - the sale could have been made directly to Anderson and Eddie could have leveraged the clubs assets to BM or anybody he wanted to, ensuring the club received all the money from the loan company and at an interest rate agreed directly with them.

Maybe it was too late to do that with going down the road with Davies believing Gordon was going to be the genuine partner with Holdsworth but it could easily have been done in time if Eddie KNEW Anderson was going to be the key investor in the purchase of the club.

So in court Eddie could have simply filed for Admin (which does cost money I know) but the Admin could have been the Pre-pack sort and sold to Anderson for £1 and with the loan (and agreed interest rate on it) already in place.

Davies KNEW though that Gordon couldn't be Holdsworth backer otherwise he wouldn't have allowed Holdsworth to secure his Sports Shield loan against BWFC assets, (in advance of the sale day remember) so who did he believe he was getting into bed with, presumably KA.

So on court day it was all agreed for Gordon to step down, Ken to step up, the sale to go through, BM to be secured on BWFC assets, Eddie to settle BM at a later date and Ken to turn the club around and put in the £2.5 needed per season until he did.

Or in all but name Holdsworth to be the front man, Eddie to pay the immediate £5m debts off and Ken to put in £2.5m for a year or two, turn the club around and sell it for a profit.

I don't know if there was some sort of gentleman's agreement to all this because Holdsworth was actually becoming the actual half owner of the club despite putting nothing in - and presumably expecting half the profits when the club is sold in the future?  I can't see Anderson ever agreeing to that though?

Maybe therefore Eddie agreed not only to underwrite Holdsworth's £5m to pay off the initial debts but also put £2.5m in for Ken for two seasons to make things equal to both parties?

Even then it would appear to Ken that he would do all the financial hard work dealings to turn the club around while Holdsworth would just strut around doing nothing as such.

There then come the inconsistencies I can't square in my thinking.

For instance why wasn't Anderson's signature on the guarantor of BWFC assets secured by BM in respect of the loan to SS - did he not know about it as he claimed?  Was the loan for £5m if so why did SS only provide £4m to BWFC?  Was 24% interest charge to BWFC by SS and only 8% charged to SS by BM?  Why was the BM settlement date just 10 days after the club sale went through when everybody knew it couldn't be settled at the time?  Why did firstly Gordon and latterly Anderson get into bed with Holdsworth if they believed him to be no use nor ornament???

Did Holdsworth welch on his agreements and try to rip others off - £1m less than expected?  24% interest rate over three years on a loan he's paying back at 8%?  Did he really expect an equal share with Anderson for putting nothing in and adding no extra value in turning the club around and selling it on?

Also from Eddies point of view, did he really fund Holdsworth on one hand and cover £2.5 trading losses as well on the other meaning both Holdsworth and Anderson put nothing into the club?  If so why?  Wouldn't it be easier and safer just to employ Anderson to turn the club around and sell it for him rather than give it away free to Holdsworth (who is penniless) and Anderson who had just served an eight year directors ban?

You really think he would be comfortable doing that?

Fwiw, I don't. and that's why I can't understand to be what he most likely did???

The key to unlocking it all is how penniless Holdsworth fits into this, how its seemed acceptable throughout that he would become joint owner and be entitled to half a share in everything resulting from a future sale (or until that actually happened, what could be taken by him from the club whilst he was in situ) and how the BM loan was allowed to come about and be given to SS and BWFC ultimately have to pay for it.

Maybe Eddie really was star struck with Dean but I very much doubt it and it as never been an option that I have ever suggested previously and discount as absurd now.

Sluffy wrote:

I've no idea how you came to that conclusion Bob?

All Holdsworth could ever be is a front from someone else - the public face that the fans would buy into - certainly worked in Iles and the ST's case, didn't it!

If I followed your reasoning correctly and you believed Holdsworth was allowed to secure BM on BWFC assets because he had no one to back him (Holdsworth himself brought no money to the table) then it could only be Eddie that was the money behind him - would it not?

The only other explanation was that Holdsworth DID have money behind him from someone else - so who could that be?

On the face of it that was Gordon.

But there were also the issue of the £2.5m ongoing running costs to cover trading losses.

If Holdsworth and Gordon was the partnership and Dean had no money, then Gordon would have to provide both.

Maybe the plan was for Gordon to provide the £5m and Eddie to quietly put in the £2.5m to cover the losses until the club was turned around and sold by Gordon/Holdsworth.

However it seems 'odd' that Gordon bailed at the last moment and Anderson parachuted in.  Seems a bit contrived to me, almost as thought that was the plan along?

Can't imagine Eddie didn't know that otherwise the deal he would have wanted was the same he thought he had with Gordon/Holdsworth, namely the Holdsworth backer (Anderson) would have been the money man behind Dean and Eddie covers the trading losses.

With Gordon/Anderson NOT putting in the £5m then that only left Eddie to do so - and permit the security of Sports Shield BM loan against BWFC assets - so in effect and whether it was intended to be or not, Eddie became the moneyman behind Holdsworth - indeed who else was there?

At this point we then hit the 'brick wall' of only £4m being received by the club (someone we both know did tell me that in all likelihood the loan could have been for £4m but the security demanded be £5m because it would cover the interest charged on the £4m that would be outstanding also if the loan was ultimately defaulted - which is a valid point and which I can accept - indeed from the time of being enlightened on this I've tried hard not to say Holdsworth actually took the money but just that there was a discrepancy between the widely reported at that time as to what was expected to be put into the club to complete the sale and what Anderson reported was received - which he too claimed he expected it to be the full £5m)

Someone, somewhere, around this issue was being somewhat uneconomical with the truth shall we say?

The issue is further compounded (if true) that Holdsworth charged BWFC 24% on the loan to BWFC from his company Sports Shield whilst only paying 8% to the original lender, BM.

So I return to the point as to why have Holdsworth as any part of the final deal at all - the sale could have been made directly to Anderson and Eddie could have leveraged the clubs assets to BM or anybody he wanted to, ensuring the club received all the money from the loan company and at an interest rate agreed directly with them.

Maybe it was too late to do that with going down the road with Davies believing Gordon was going to be the genuine partner with Holdsworth but it could easily have been done in time if Eddie KNEW Anderson was going to be the key investor in the purchase of the club.

So in court Eddie could have simply filed for Admin (which does cost money I know) but the Admin could have been the Pre-pack sort and sold to Anderson for £1 and with the loan (and agreed interest rate on it) already in place.

Davies KNEW though that Gordon couldn't be Holdsworth backer otherwise he wouldn't have allowed Holdsworth to secure his Sports Shield loan against BWFC assets, (in advance of the sale day remember) so who did he believe he was getting into bed with, presumably KA.

So on court day it was all agreed for Gordon to step down, Ken to step up, the sale to go through, BM to be secured on BWFC assets, Eddie to settle BM at a later date and Ken to turn the club around and put in the £2.5 needed per season until he did.

Or in all but name Holdsworth to be the front man, Eddie to pay the immediate £5m debts off and Ken to put in £2.5m for a year or two, turn the club around and sell it for a profit.

I don't know if there was some sort of gentleman's agreement to all this because Holdsworth was actually becoming the actual half owner of the club despite putting nothing in - and presumably expecting half the profits when the club is sold in the future?  I can't see Anderson ever agreeing to that though?

Maybe therefore Eddie agreed not only to underwrite Holdsworth's £5m to pay off the initial debts but also put £2.5m in for Ken for two seasons to make things equal to both parties?

Even then it would appear to Ken that he would do all the financial hard work dealings to turn the club around while Holdsworth would just strut around doing nothing as such.

There then come the inconsistencies I can't square in my thinking.

For instance why was Anderson signature on the guarantor of BWFC assets secured by BM in respect of the loan to SS?  Was the loan for £5m if so why did SS only provide £4m to BWFC?  Was 24% interest charge to BWFC by SS and only 8% charged to SS by BM?  Why was the BM settlement date just 10 days after the club sale went through when everybody knew it couldn't be settled at the time?  Why did firstly Gordon and latterly Anderson get into bed with Holdsworth if they believed him to be no use nor ornament???

Did Holdsworth welch on his agreements and try to rip others off - £1m less than expected?  24% interest rate over three years on a loan he's paying back at 8%?  Did he really expect an equal share with Anderson for putting nothing in and adding no extra value in turning the club around and selling it on?

Also from Eddies point of view, did he really fund Holdsworth on one hand and cover £2.5 trading losses as well on the other meaning both Holdsworth and Anderson put nothing into the club?  If so why?  Wouldn't it be easier and safer just to employ Anderson to turn the club around and sell it for him rather than give it away free to Holdsworth (who is penniless) and Anderson who had just served an eight year directors ban?

You really think he would be comfortable doing that?

Fwiw, I don't. and that's why I can't understand to be what he most likely did???

The key to unlocking it all is how penniless Holdsworth fits into this, how its seemed acceptable throughout that he would become joint owner and be entitled to half a share in everything resulting from a future sale (or until that actually happened, what could be taken by him from the club whilst he was in situ) and how the BM loan was allowed to come about and be given to SS and BWFC ultimately have to pay for it.

Maybe Eddie really was star struck with Dean but I very much doubt it and it as never been an option that I have ever suggested previously and discount as absurd now.

Sorry, Sluffy, but you do seem to overthink things sometimes and get yourself into ever decreasing circles. Try watching this. It won't explain it all to you but might help set your mind at rest.



But if you insist talking figures, take a look at the accounts at Companies House and figure out what the losses and debts were and how much  money would be needed to fund them.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sorry, Sluffy, but you do seem to overthink things sometimes and get yourself into ever decreasing circles.

Oh the irony 

Norpig wrote:
Oh the irony 

Could anyone accuse you of overthinking? Why don't you make my day and tell me about any intelligent or original thought you've ever had?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry, Sluffy, but you do seem to overthink things sometimes and get yourself into ever decreasing circles. Try watching this. It won't explain it all to you but might help set your mind at rest.

Thanks for your concern and video clip but as far as I'm concerned all I'm doing is following a flow of simple logic from the information that is known of how someone with no discernible money takes on a multimillion pound loan which is secured against another companies assets.

I'm not trying to 'force' or 'manipulate' the logic to 'fit' a preconceived objective but merely follow where it will take me to.

I don't believe I am overthinking it or going around in ever decreasing circles - I've nothing better to do even if I was - just stating what seems to me to be the obvious and list out some of the reasons why where my logic trail took me seems to conflict with what else we know or have been told - clearly something doesn't match up somewhere for me then.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:But if you insist talking figures, take a look at the accounts at Companies House and figure out what the losses and debts were and how much  money would be needed to fund them.

The only figures I've mention are those stated to be connected to the BM loan.

I'm aware that the club was running at a loss and had huge debts but that isn't my focus, what is, is what brought about Holdsworth acquiring a loan from BM and secure it on assets of BWFC?

All that followed on, even to this day results from why that was done and the fall-out both literally and figuratively from it.

Not the it means anything anymore than just a curiosity I had from that time about what was happening and a bit of mental activity on my part to try and puzzle it out.

Poor Eddie has since passed away, Holdsworth's Sports Shield BWFC was forced into liquidation, Anderson's Inner Circle Investments was eventually bought by Bassini after all, BluMarble agreed a settlement for their loan to Holdsworth from Anderson/Eddie and is doing ok as you pointed out above, Burnden Leisure/BWFC (as was) are awaiting liquidation and the club (BWFC as is) is now owned by FV - so nothing tangible exists anymore other than an event that happened which I couldn't understand at the time and still haven't cracked it.

It won't make my life complete if I did find out what happened and I don't lose any sleep not knowing what happened.

In fact I hadn't given it a thought in ages until Hip Priest ask a question the other day and I tried to answer it for him.

There's lots of things I'll never know in life, this is just one of them, it isn't important to me personally just a mental exercise if you will to keep me amused from time to time.

Nice to see Boris telling people to go to the cinema, maybe he'll be telling us to football games soon - you never know.

Can't see it happening however as I see another 12,600 positive results reported  today.

The Reebok stadium's tangible, Sluffy. It was on Top Gear last night and still looks the business.

I'm thinking I might have to start a thread in defence of Dean Holdsworth. Poor lamb hasn't had much of a say except to the ST, the Beeno and Auntie Beeb. Terrence Rigby says he spent the best of a million quid on fees, you know.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Could anyone accuse you of overthinking? Why don't you make my day and tell me about any intelligent or original thought you've ever had?

I think about a lot of things but mainly at the moment its about what life was like before you joined Bolton Nuts, such happy times for us all

Norpig wrote:
I think about a lot of things but mainly at the moment its about what life was like before you joined Bolton Nuts, such happy times for us all

Diddums.

Norpig wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Could anyone accuse you of overthinking? Why don't you make my day and tell me about any intelligent or original thought you've ever had?

I think about a lot of things but mainly at the moment its about what life was like before you joined Bolton Nuts, such happy times for us all

Hmmm - I thought it was constant battles just like it is now!