McGinlay, Kevin Davies and Bergsson urge Eddie Davies to act swiftly to stave off administration

Sorry, Sluffy, but you still don't seem to have grasped it. £15m was not at stake.

EDT were owed £10m by the club plus whatever Eddie had loaned to Ken Anderson, that he had loaned to the club. The figure is about £7.5million but it is the same £7.5million not £7.5million times two.

Please don't think its all about you either. It is definitely helpful to have someone to bounce things off but  I try to clarify these things for the benefit of anyone who is interested. 

There are thousands of people carrying irrational grievances against Eddie Davies, Phil Gartside and Ken Anderson and there is no shortage of those who want to continue stirring the pot based on false information. 

I doubt there will be many who change their spots. Folk who jump to conclusions on one issue will frequently jump to conclusions on others and rarely are happy to be proven mistaken.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:One other simple fact is that Nuts remains the only place that anyone interested in what really happened at Bolton Wanderers can find any considered or informed discourse and Sluffy, despite imo occasionally going off at tangents, has to be thanked for allowing it to happen at all.

Thanks for that tribute, Bob. I like to think I've opened a few eyes with my forensic investigations of a rather troubling period in our history.
I'd have done more but for my pencils being confiscated after an unfortunate incident with the cat. I've since bought my own sharpener.
Any adding up problems, well, you know where to find me.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry, Sluffy, but you still don't seem to have grasped it. £15m was not at stake.

EDT were owed £10m by the club plus whatever Eddie had loaned to Ken Anderson, that he had loaned to the club. The figure is about £7.5million but it is the same £7.5million not £7.5million times two.

Please don't think its all about you either. It is definitely helpful to have someone to bounce things off but  I try to clarify these things for the benefit of anyone who is interested. 

There are thousands of people carrying irrational grievances against Eddie Davies, Phil Gartside and Ken Anderson and there is no shortage of those who want to continue stirring the pot based on false information. 

I doubt there will be many who change their spots. Folk who jump to conclusions on one issue will frequently jump to conclusions on others and rarely are happy to be proven mistaken.

I already had mused on that question (albeit with a slight typing error)...

Sluffy wrote:Did ED settle BM direct away from BM [Edit - it should read BL] if so he hadn't lent the money to BL, if so how could he secure it against BL's assets?

If that is the case however what money did he secure on the 18th September, 2018?

Sluffy wrote:I note also the BM is not shown as a creditor to the company as their TWO accounts were satisfied on 24th September, 2018 - that ED (Moonshift registered a charge on 18th September, 2018 (there were previous charges of theirs dating back to some years before) - and KA charge registered on 2nd October, 2018

I'm not a complete idiot, I obvious understood that both parties £7.5m were connected and both either had to be 'inside' the club and its accounts or 'away' from the club and the accounts.

What I could not square - still can't - is why the Administrator accepted that Anderson DID have an amount of money secured?

Anderson only placed one charge on BL - 2nd October, 2018 - a matter days days after Eddie had made his final charge, which clearly was struck out by the Administrator.

So KA must have had some funds to deposit in BL - yes?

So what then had Eddie put into BL a few weeks earlier - nothing???

Or something?

If he put nothing in - which the accounts of the company seems to show - then clearly the Administrator was correct in striking out this claim of £7.5m security (which you seem to be claiming was 'misrepresentation' by him?)

(And fwiw was within his powers to do so under Insolvency legislation as I had been stating).

If he HAD put something in, then why was it not showing on the Company's accounts?

Similar questions of KA also...

Did he put money in - yes, he must have done if the Company's accounts show he had to the tune of £1.578,042.

But it certainly doesn't seem to have been the amount of £7.5m he 'claimed' he had.

(and again fwiw the Administrator had the power of the Insolvency legislation to dismiss the majority of the claim).

It made absolutely no sense to me that ED put in £7.5m in to BL to pay off BM, and that somehow KA paid in the same money again(???) to use it to secured his separate claim too.

Indeed according to the Administrator the Company's account's showed that neither of them put in the full £7.5m and thus their claims for security, shall we say, were somewhat misplaced - and rightly denied.

As I postulated on an earlier post...

Sluffy wrote:He's [The Administrator] set aside the contract to remain between the two legal entities (ED and KA) and away from BL.

...which you clearly rubbished at that time!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Leave out five million dots/quid and Bob's your aunty, Boncey. Its still all proper, pukka and professional in Sluffyland.

If that is indeed the case, then I don't see how you could claim the Administrator was misrepresenting anything and accordingly giving me such a hard time for much of the last few weeks, in respect of my lines of thought which now seem to be within touching distance of what actually appears to be have happen - namely the Administrator did act honestly, did strike out the two claims using Insolvency legislation and that the contract between ED and KA in respect of loans to pay off BM and other creditors (players wages?) were done away from Burnden Leisure Ltd, and did not involve the company in the contractual agreements between ED (Fildraw) and KA (ICI).


To be honest I don't mind being given a tough time, I can take it as well as give it unlike most I've dealt with.

I do play fairly and it's all just a big game to me and I enjoy being mentally stretched from time to time.

I still don't know what you wanted to get from all of this but whatever it was I hoped you have achieved it and can now let whatever it was, go, and move on from it.

Hope so anyway.

And whilst I've had a little think since my previous post above, I want to approach this bit from another angle...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:EDT were owed £10m by the club plus whatever Eddie had loaned to Ken Anderson, that he had loaned to the club. The figure is about £7.5million but it is the same £7.5million not £7.5million times two.

I understand what you are saying here - EDT are owed a total of £17.5m.

But it is quite clear in the Administrators report (Page 17 of 39  - 10.1 Secured Creditors - Fildraw.) that  EDT believed the full £17.5m was in BL with them having a charge for that total against assets - it is actually stated as such IN the Secured Creditors part of the report and NOT as unsecured creditor, or anywhere else!

It seems to me that BL never received any monies (or certainly not the circa £7.5m additional claimed by EDT when the 18th September, 2018 charge was created).

If that is the case and the money was dealt with between ED, KA and BM completely separately to BL, then the Administrator acted completely properly in striking down that sum to leave EDT with a balance of just £10,050,000 charge against assets (a secured creditor for that sum and NOT the £17.5m claimed by EDT).

I also do not understand the timeline in respect of KA's claim for £7.5m

ED created a claim on the 18th September for a charge on assets.

BM charge was satisfied on the 24th September

KA made his one and only claim for a charge on assets which was created on the 2nd October - AFTER BM had been settled!

I don't understand how he had a spare £7.5m (from down the back of his sofa?) to be able to do this as clearly the money from ED to settle BM had been paid out a week before he created his charge???

Again in the Auditors reported KA's claim for £7.5m was shown under Secured Creditors.

Records have been filed at CH from both Moonshift and KA both stating they had claimed a charge on BL and confirms the basis for the claims from both of them - but it would seem the money never went through BL books - and thus not secured as a charge for either of them.

I can't see how either secured charge would have been possible without money from both parties to the amount they both claimed had been received by BL - the Administrator reported that the Company's accounts did not show that to be the case in both instances (apart from the £1,578,042 shown to be the case for KA).

I therefore don't believe the Administrator to have misrepresented anything and that he most likely used the powers he had under Insolvency legislation the strike out Moonshift's 18th September charge in full and the majority of KA's 2nd October charge.

The bottom line to me is simply that the £7.5m from ED to KA the majority of which was to settle the BM loan, simply did not go through BL and thus ED and KA simply could not place a charge on BL and that's why the Administrator ruled them out.

He simply discharged his job correctly.

And fwiw I remember pointing out this apparent discrepancy at the time...

Sluffy wrote:I also do not understand the timeline in respect of KA's claim for £7.5m

ED created a claim on the 18th September for a charge on assets.

BM charge was satisfied on the 24th September

KA made his one and only claim for a charge on assets which was created on the 2nd October - AFTER BM had been settled!

I don't understand how he had a spare £7.5m (from down the back of his sofa?) to be able to do this as clearly the money from ED to settle BM had been paid out a week before he created his charge???

...but was shot down by someone or other who insisted that the dates were somewhat arbitrary and that the receipt of, date of recording, date of registering at CH were in a sense meaningless and the records did not necessarily show the exact dates - and this was also why KA COULD have put money into BL BEFORE BM was settled - the timeline in real life and the timeline recorded at CH being different to each other.

It didn't sound right to me even at the time but I had no experience of how CH worked (still don't now actually) and had to accept that maybe(?) it was how things really were?

I've never understood either how you could set a charge against assets already fully secured against, either - but let that pass for now - but I mention it because my logic was that KA had to wait until BM had been settled in order for him to register a charge against the now unencumbered assets that had just become free of a charge with the settling of BM - and thus why it made a sort of sequential sense to me that ED had firstly put money into BL to secure it against assets (God knows which?) then BM was settled, which freed those assets it was secured against, in order that KA could put in his £7.5m(?) to secure against.

It however did create another problem that I could not solve, namely in order to have done that both ED and KA had to both put in £7.5m each (at the time we thought it was around £5m (£4.4m for BM, £0.6m for other) or somehow put the same money in twice - both options making no sense at all to me.

I'm not being wise after the event or crowing now that I got most things right all along - maybe I still haven't(!) - I'm just saying the logic of what I was 'told' was going on didn't stack up to me - and my knowledge on the subject was so little (it still is) that after having my say and told that I was wrong, accepted it as such - knowing that if I banged on about it then I would run into the immediate problem of why did ED and KA put £5m in each (£10m to pay the BM £4.4m loan outstanding) OR both somehow each put in the same £5m stash under different names ED and KA...

...so I thought best to leave it at that as no one else seemed to have an issue with the logic - so maybe I was wrong after all on this?

A bit of a random thought has just occurred to me...

IF ED (and KA) thought it was legal to undertake a loan transaction separate and completely away from BL and yet still security on the assets of BL, would that not also explain then how the BM charge came about also?

Holdsworth in the form of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd (iirc?) took out a loan from BM, yet secured the loan against the assets of BL (and who was not a party to the either SSBWFC or BM). SSBWFC received the loan and Holdsworth then loaned it to BL (BWFC) at an eye watering interest rate (and allegedly took £1m of the money as commission for setting up the deal!).

Isn't that the similar to what went on with ED and KA's transaction?

KA took out a loan with ED (Moonshift) and secured the loan against the assets of BL.  

(I'm not sure if KA ever had the money in his hand - ED may have settled with BM direct - but the bottom line is that a loan that wasn't lent to BL still ended up with BL's assets used as security against repayment?)

If so isn't Holdsworth action and KA's actions more or less identical to each other?


I'm not sure how it works with ED attempted security against BL on the 18th September, 2018 though?

The charge was registered before the BM loan was settled but the money never apparently came into BL, the BM loan wasn't settled by BL (most likely the payment was made directly from Moonshift (that was the name on the charge set against BL) to BM - but the bottom line was that BL benefitted from the transaction because an outstanding creditor (BM) for something like £4.4m was settled outside of the books.

It gets even more complicated in that Moonshift also secured against ICI (KA's company that apparently held the ownership of BL)

I'm not absolutely sure how that works though as the last Confirmation statement that I could find for BL (now renamed as BWFC2019) was for the 10th November 2016, which seems to show BL owned all its own shares in BL.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00043026/filing-history?page=2


I'm not sure what I'm really trying to say here except it looks to me that is how Holdsworth was able to secure a loan his company received against the assets of another company - BL who wasn't party to the transaction,  was seemingly very similar to how KA attempted do the the same - namely he received a loan personally(?) (I can't find any trace of circa £5m showing on ICI Ltd accounts) although it may have been paid directly from ED/Moonshift to BM - and secured it against the assets of another company - BL who again wasn't party to the transaction.

Similarly of a fashion ED/Moonshift secured their borrowings to KA, which paid off BM which was showing as a creditor of BL and secured themselves against KA's ICI and the assets of another company - BL who again, etc, etc.

I don't understand how that can be?

Clearly ED thought it was permittable but clearly the insolvency specialists didn't!

They couldn't do anything in respect of Holdsworth or BM as both had left/been settled before the Administration commenced - but insolvency expert (the Administrator) disallowed ED and KA's claims as being ultra vires I guess?

'I'm not sure what I'm really trying to say' and 'I don't understand how that can be', sums it up, Sluffy?

Lets keep it succinct, shall we? Its all been explained previously but you haven't had your listening ears or your thinking head on and so are floundering and rambling in a fog of your own creation.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:'I'm not sure what I'm really trying to say' and 'I don't understand how that can be', sums it up, Sluffy?

Lets keep it succinct, shall we? Its all been explained previously but you haven't had your listening ears or your thinking head on and so are floundering and rambling in a fog of your own creation.

Bob, I'm simply not bothered!

The thought that hit me was that if a transaction was ruled out by the Administrator for being illegal, then surely a similar action which occurred some years earlier was possibly/probably an illegal one too?

As nothing could be done about it if it was because it falls outside the legal limit (within one year of an insolvency intervention) then my comments are somewhat meaningless other than to have voiced my wonderings out loud on here.

And yes you did explain it to me earlier but I still had my doubts, it didn't fit with the legality of what I knew of Company Law, but accepted your explanation in good faith because my specialism was in the field of the public sector and not the private sector as yours is.

Bob, fwiw, I'm not on a mission of trying to prove you wrong, if that's what you think?

I'm simply trying to understand what was a puzzle to me at the time, whose solution given to me by you, didn't fully satisfy me, which has stuck in my head, and on understanding now that the Administrator has seemingly ruled out a similar transaction, has resurfaced in my mind.

That's all.