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

I see the facts as being pretty clear, Sluffy. The conjecture less so but Michael James plainly enjoys the support and confidence of Tom Morris, a very successful businessman who is doubtless astute enough to look at business decisions in the round. PBP has done pretty well overall despite the poor return on its investment locked in at the Middlebrook.

Why did FV go for BWFC? If you fancied a bit of a punt on owning a footie club, BWFC would  have its attractions especially if it was available and going relatively cheap. FV worked long and hard to get the price down and have continued to work to get the price down further post-acquisition whilst finding new sources of money to keep the show on the road.

Might FV investors have done better to have made their relatively small personal investment elsewhere? Maybe so. Only time will tell.

P.S. I don't know if its been reported in the Beeno but I understand that there are about 30 members of the Swiss consortium.

Thanks Bob.

Yes the facts are clear, I've never disputed them.

I've simple mused out aloud a possible scenario as to why the PBP loan remains outstanding well past its settlement date despite the majority owner seemingly wanting his investment back (ie the offer of waiving of all accrued interest if settled by a certain date - which subsequently passed).

I've never claimed to be right about this, just simply playing with the known facts and seeing if I could come up with an alternative explanation as to why things are how they are other than Morris being a seemingly reluctant benefactor to the club/(FV).

As for the Swiss consortium I've heard nothing much about them, the only whisper I've heard is that some of them attend matches and appear in corporate in Wanderers shirts (which apparently is not 'the done thing!').

I am intrigued to know if the 'Swiss' are really Swiss at all, or whether they are just named after the money from the Swiss banks there, as I'm wondering what a bunch of random Swiss would see in BWFC but perhaps could understand more if it were a group of Americans who caught the 'bug' of British football jeopardy in 'promotions' and 'relegations' from the Hollywood duo at Wrexham.

(Apparently a crowd of 35,000 for the recent friendly between Wrexham and Man United in the states and a 50,000 attendance v Chelsea a few days earlier!!!)


As for BWFC being relatively cheap to buy (circa £30m) Wigan was ultimately sold debt free to the Bahrainis for £2.5m. (It was up for sale at just £4m prior to that as per this article on the previous failed Spanish bid at the time)

Spanish investor agrees to buy Wigan Athletic out of administration | Wigan Athletic | The Guardian

Sluffy wrote:Thanks Bob.

Yes the facts are clear, I've never disputed them.

I've simple mused out aloud a possible scenario as to why the PBP loan remains outstanding well past its settlement date despite the majority owner seemingly wanting his investment back (ie the waiving of all accrued interest if settled by a certain date - which subsequently passed).

I've never claimed to be right about this, just simply playing with the known facts and seeing if I could come up with an alternative explanation as to why things are how they are other than Morris being a seemingly reluctant benefactor to the club/(FV).

As for the Swiss consortium I've heard nothing much about them, the only whisper I've heard is that some of them attend matches and appear in corporate in Wanderers shirts (which apparently is not 'the done thing!').

I am intrigued to know if the 'Swiss' are really Swiss at all, or whether they are just named after the money from the Swiss banks there, as I'm wondering what a bunch of random Swiss would see in BWFC but perhaps could understand more if it were a group of Americans who caught the 'bug' of British football jeopardy in 'promotions' and 'relegations' from the Hollywood duo at Wrexham.

(Apparently a crowd of 35,000 for the recent friendly between Wrexham and Man United in the states and a 50,000 attendance v Chelsea a few days earlier!!!)


As for BWFC being relatively cheap to buy (circa £30m) Wigan was ultimately sold debt free to the Bahrainis for £2.5m. (It was up for sale at just £4m prior to that as per this article on the previous failed Spanish bid at the time)

Spanish investor agrees to buy Wigan Athletic out of administration | Wigan Athletic | The Guardian

I gather that the first match the Swiss investors came to watch at the Reebok was the 6-0 thrashing of Sunderland. Do they get shareholders perks? I don't know but I wouldn't really treat BWFC and Wigan as being on the same footing.

Despite our recent difficulties the Reebok remains an impressive complex and setting, we still have a decent following and reputation and its not that long ago that we were in the Premiership and mixing it with European elite.

How much has Team Brittan coughed up to gain overall control? You'd have to sit down and try quite hard to figure that out but there's no doubt that its a long way shy of £30m.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I gather that the first match the Swiss investors came to watch at the Reebok was the 6-0 thrashing of Sunderland. Do they get shareholders perks? I don't know but I wouldn't really treat BWFC and Wigan as being on the same footing.

Despite our recent difficulties the Reebok remains an impressive complex and setting, we still have a decent following and reputation and its not that long ago that we were in the Premiership and mixing it with European elite.

How much has Team Brittan coughed up to gain overall control? You'd have to sit down and try quite hard to figure that out but there's no doubt that its a long way shy of £30m.

I didn't claim Wigan was on the same footing as Bolton, I simply pointed out that a Championship club at the time was sold for £2.5m debt free.

I'm pretty sure that the cost for FV to buy BWFC was at around 10 times that amount (if not more) and you helped and guided me to arrive at such an amount - and I thank you for that.

I'm not trying to make anything out of this except to try and answer a question I keep asking myself as to why Sharon and Luckock seemed to have wanted BWFC for their 'investment' (and seemingly paid a hefty premium for it) when somewhat better financial deals could have been had at clubs they might have had some personal connection to (they don't seem to have any previous with Bolton) and certainly more conveniently located to them both who live just outside of west London.

I don't consider that an unreasonable question to ask myself as people generally do do things for a reason.

It is of course just simply an academic exercise for myself in the sense that it has already happened (they bought and own the club) it just however would allow me to understand where they are going with all of this because at the moment the image they seem to portray - that of working towards a financial self sustainability club doesn't seem to match up to me with a business trading at a loss, with debts of at least £5.5m outstanding, and which has just issued a bond (to be repaid in 5 years) for £4.5m.

The 'numbers' simply don't stack up to me - I don't think they stack up for you either.

I've no reason to think they are 'chancers' or all this will end up in tears but something is missing financially from the picture we are being shown and I simply would personally like to understand what it is - or put simply, why are they here and not some place else?

Maybe I'll never get to know - and it's probably none of my business anyway - I'm simply curious - that's all.

And yes we do have a nice stadium and yes we were in the PL and played games in Europe - good times indeed - but it cost someone over £200m for the pleasure and at the moment FV can't clear the PBP debt and have basically asked the fans to dip in their pockets to find the money to tart the stadium up and put a few bob in to our summer transfer kitty.

I take from that, that we are a long way a way from returning to our recent glory days funded by Eddie...

Sluffy wrote:

I didn't claim Wigan was on the same footing as Bolton, I simply pointed out that a Championship club at the time was sold for £2.5m debt free.

I'm pretty sure that the cost for FV to buy BWFC was at around 10 times that amount (if not more) and you helped and guided me to arrive at such an amount - and I thank you for that.

I'm not trying to make anything out of this except to try and answer a question I keep asking  myself as to why Sharon and Luckock seemed to have wanted BWFC for their 'investment' (and seemingly paid a hefty premium for it) when somewhat better financial deals could have been had at clubs they might have had some personal connection to (they don't seem to have any previous with Bolton) and certainly more conveniently located to them both who live just outside of west London.

I don't consider that an unreasonable question to ask myself as people generally do do things for a reason.

It is of course just simply an academic exercise for myself in the sense that it has already happened (they bought and own the club) it just however would allow me to understand where they are going with all of this because at the moment the image they seem to portray - that of working towards a financial self sustainability club doesn't seem to match up to me with a business trading at a loss, with debts of at least £5.5m outstanding, and which has just issued a bond (to be repaid in 5 years) for £4.5m.

The 'numbers' simply don't stack up to me - I don't think they stack up for you either.

I've no reason to think they are 'chancers' or all this will end up in tears but something is missing financially from the picture we are being shown and I simply would personally like to understand what it is - or put simply, why are they here and not some place else?

Maybe I'll never get to know - and it's probably none of my business anyway - I'm simply curious - that's all.

And yes we do have a nice stadium and yes we were in the PL and played games in Europe - good times indeed - but it cost someone over £200m for the pleasure and at the moment FV can't clear the PBP debt and have basically asked the fans to dip in their pockets to find the money to tart the stadium up and put a few bob in to our summer transfer kitty.

I take from that, that we are a long way a way from returning to our recent glory days funded by Eddie...

The devil's in the detail, Sluffy, and its not that easy to pin it all down but the last lot of shares were issued at £6.68 per share and the ones before that at £6.53 per share. These are new shares issued by the company with the company getting the money. If Team Brittan could get that for their shares they'd be quids in. They haven't achieved that yet but you'd have to point me in the direction of footie club owners that have done much better amongst clubs of our size.

A football club's fortunes can and do, of course, change quite dramatically and unpredictably over a short period of time. Promotion or relegation makes a huge difference and its not at all unusual for the former to be quickly reversed by the latter or vice versa.

Player sales can also make a massive difference. I'm not sure our record on that generally compares favorably with our peer group except for the successes during the Anderson era. Despite Dr Holdsworth's protestations (bless his cotton socks), £4million for Zac Clough was not to be sniffed at and £6million for Gary Madine seemed to me quite an achievement for Anderson and son.

I'm not trying to contradict btw. I'm just trying to offer some thoughts on why Team Brittan might have thought BWFC worth a bit of a punt.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The devil's in the detail, Sluffy, and its not that easy to pin it all down but the last lot of shares were issued at £6.68 per share and the ones before that at £6.53 per share. These are new shares issued by the company with the company getting the money. If Team Brittan could get that for their shares they'd be quids in. They haven't achieved that yet but you'd have to point me in the direction of footie club owners that have done much better amongst clubs of our size.

A football club's fortunes can and do, of course, change quite dramatically and unpredictably over a short period of time. Promotion or relegation makes a huge difference and its not at all unusual for the former to be quickly reversed by the latter or vice versa.

Player sales can also make a massive difference. I'm not sure our record on that generally compares favourably with our peer group except for the successes during the Anderson era. Despite Dr Holdsworth's protestations (bless his cotton socks), £4million for Zac Clough was not to be sniffed at and £6million for Gary Madine seemed to me quite an achievement for Anderson and son.

I'm not trying to contradict btw. I'm just trying to offer some thoughts on why Team Brittan might have thought BWFC worth a bit of a punt.

All what you say is true Bob but as we all know at the end of the day something is only worth what someone else will pay for it.

FV paid something in the region of £26m for the club and stadium iirc.

Ok not all of the was cash, they took on debts such as Eddie, PBP, Warburton, etc - and even then Eddie waived a large chunk of what was owed to him at a later stage.

Since the purchase the club has run at a loss.

Now Wigan might have been an unusual case being sold for just £2.5m but in effect the purchasers of BWFC and WAFC more or less got the same things, namely a football club with no first team players, a newish modern stadium and training ground - ok Bolton have a larger fan base but Wigan fans raised £600k to help their club out when it was in need our ST and their 'high net worth individuals' were nowhere to be seen when we the shit was hitting our fan.

All that you say about building up the share value and buying and selling players for a profit can be done at either club - my point being one cost £2.5m for someone whilst the other cost 10 times more for FV!

Will FV end up making a profit on their investment - we shall have to wait and see - but if they had bought WAFC for a tenth of the price, then I suggest they would have had a much better chance of doing so.

Why then did they fight so hard to own Bolton?

As far as I can see there would have been a much better value purchases to have been made - sooner or later - even if that meant buying Wigan!

That's how my reasoning goes.

Another way I look at it too, is that if Bolton was the 'special' then why was nobody else lining up to buy us (apart from that clown Bassini)?

We very, very nearly followed Bury out of the league as no one else saw any value in us - yet FV bid £26m???

I just don't get why two people who live nowhere near the club and have zero connection previously to it, would want to save it and to the tune of £26m in doing so too?

I haven't checked out the Wigan story and don't intend to, Sluffy. Neither would I swallow any media accounts without checking them out first.

The whole truth about BWFC changing hands was never recounted with intelligence or perception in the media and still hasn't been. I reckon that you could ask a hundred BWFC fans what actually happened in 2016 or 2019 and be lucky to find any that had really grasped it.

Team Brittan took a punt and if they can sell their own shares for the prices paid by the Swiss guys, the UK government and finance professional, Ian Riley, the punt will pay off.

Its not a punt I'd have taken but I'm not Nick Mason and neither do I bank at Coutts.

P.S. It was the directors, on behalf of the company, that agreed to take on BWFC debts, not the shareholders. The shareholders agreed to pay a sum of money for their shares. That was the limit of their liability.

As it happens, the taxpayer funded most of the EDT debt (after EDT had written off another £2.5m),
the sale of surplus land appears to have settled the Warburton debt and the PBP debt seems to be repetitively kicked down the road.

Thanks Bob.

Shareholders appoint the Directors, at least in the companies that I hold shares in, so I very much doubt that James stuck £5.5m into Burnden Leisure to prop it up without Tom Morris approval.

Also did you know that Tom Morris is no longer a shareholder in PBP since 1st November, 2021?

He's transferred them to TM Morris Holdings Ltd of which he is the sole share holder.

Eddie's Moonshift loan and Warburton's loan both seemed to be basically loans from the money they totally have control of themselves.

As for Wigan I'm not asking you or anyone else to check out the Wigan story, Paul Stanley the lead Administrator for Begbies Traynor is on record as saying it would only take £2.5m to buy what was left of WAFC (the stadium and training ground) out of Administration and in Bolton's case the EFL gave permission for the Administrators to conclude the sale to FV and failing that there was no other option other than they remove our registration to the league (which they did to Bury) and basically the liquidation of Burnden Leisure (ie BWFC).

I very much doubt the business plans FV had when they bought BWFC are anything like what they've evolved into these days. For a start the purchase was pre-Covid so there was no such thing imaginable as to getting the UK government to but £2.5m worth of shares for roughly 8% at £6 per share!!!

That in turn made FV change their business model from having these vague draw down loans (or whatever they were) of £10m each from Sharon and Luckock into transforming them in to equity at a rate of £8 per share at the same time as matched funding for the government loan (the government receiving a 20% discount on them).

The shares sold thereafter at the premium price of £6 per share seemed to have been done via a Luckock controlled business (venture capital investors?) and to one random and very rich Bolton supporter.

It seems somewhat of a far cry from a business plan that included Peter Kenyon and Tobias Phoenix. Even Emma was replaced as CE to be replaced by Neil Hart.

Fwiw we don't actually have any proof that Nick Mason was (or still is) the money man behind FV although it would seem someone had to be as the club certainly wasn't financially stable at the point it was bought and for some time thereafter.

And yes you are right I certainly couldn't tell you all the ins and outs of Bolton's sale in 2016 and 2019 or the real reasons for them and most of my understanding of what I do believe to know is largely thanks to your guidance and help.

It wasn't just the £5.5m loan was it, Sluffy? There was another £6m for the sale and lease back of the car park. These amounts were crucial to rescuing the club in 2016 and are most unlikely to have happened if Michael James had not been a Bolton supporter or without the consent of Tom Morris.

The owners of PBP, as you have observed, transferred their personal ownership of shares in PBP into two companies that they each controlled in 2021. This seems like a prudent move but of no particular significance to the points we are discussing.

There's no doubt in my mind that the FV deal with the administrator was difficult and not helped by the contributions of Marc Iles or other axe grinders. In the end it seemed to largely turn on how much more the Eddie Davies Trust was willing to write off. The other secured creditors wrote nothing off but had to wait for their money. PBP still seems to be waiting but has now written off all the interest it was owed since 2016.

Forgive me if I don't go into the business plans or Nick Mason's involvement. That would just be going over old ground again.

The present management seem to believe that they are smarter than the average. Lets hope they are.

Thanks Bob but I'm not completely sure what you are trying to tell me here (if you are in fact trying to tell me something?)

Yes PBP did loan a further £6m secured against the car park which on default of payment became PBP's which they leased back to the club.

Iirc around the time of the loan The Emerson Group (owners Middlebrook Retail Park) were lined up to purchase the car park (or was it to loan against the car park?) and it was quite a surprise when at the last minute the PBP loan was announced instead.  

It does seem coincidental that James was both involved at the time and went on to become a Director at BWFC but I guess we don't know for sure if he/PBP did this for the love of BWFC or whether there was a sound business venture involved as well considering Emerson had shown clear interest in wanting to own the land the car park was on?

I mentioned the change in share ownership at PBP simply out of polite interest for you, not that it was of any relevance to what PBP  was doing/not doing in respect of their outstanding loan to (now) FV.

The Administration was difficult, I suspect the deal turned more on Ken Anderson maximising his position (evidenced by him appointing an Administrator for the hotel - why the need to do that if everything was cordial and trustworthy between all parties at the time?).  

I doubt the shit stirred by Iles the ST and others on social media, really had much influence if any with the professional, legal and technical issues that needed to be resolved between all the parties claims that needed to be resolved during Administration and leading to the sale, as things have to be done properly and in accordance with the law, no matter how others may feel about things at the time.

Yes Eddie's Trust writing off most of his debt was crucial to facilitating the sale and so to were the transfer of the loans outstanding from Burnden Leisure to Football Ventures by PBP and Warburton both of whom could have insisted to be paid at the time by the Administrator due to their loans being secured.

I can't recall that we've ever discussed the Business plans of Nick Mason?  

There was an early picture of the five 'partners' on the Reebok pitch and their names for an instant were shown on the clubs official website but by the time it had got around to the first Confirmation Statement being published both Mason and Morris (the car insurance one) names had been removed and never been seen since (although one of the later published accounts did mention that Sharon was acting as a proxy for an unnamed shareholder (or shareholders?).

Yes he would appear to have money to burn but we don't know for definitive that he's throwing a chunk of it at BWFC via Sharon.

It seems plausible and there clearly is a bond between Sharon and him and it could well be happening but we have no hard evidence to back that up.

As for FV's management at BWFC, yes they seem to be somewhat smug about it and do appear to want to innovate to a degree (the government loan to shares, ban on gambling at the stadium, one of the first to throw off the EFL website and TV facility at this current opportunity, and of course the bond scheme).

However as smug as they appear to be the club is still running at a loss, still has the PBP debt and has just taken on the bond debt of £4.5m.

Hardly reached the point of the target they've stated of financial self-sustainability yet have they?

The £6m was not a loan, Sluffy, it was a sale. Emerson were bound to be interested, if the price was right, but who said they were 'lined up' or willing to do a lease back on terms favourable to the club?

Yes things do have to be done lawfully and professionally in administrations but can you explain why the administrators were vague about the exact amounts owed to the Eddie Davies Trust and, crucially, significantly misrepresented the amounts owed to Ken Anderson?

Before during and after the administration, Anderson was characterised, in the media and on social media, as the villain whilst seemingly obliged by these actions to appoint additional administrators to the hotel to protect his own legal position.

At the end of the day it was leaked, you might ask yourself from where, that a deal had been done BEFORE anyone had had the courtesy to check with Anderson's lawyers whether they agreed the terms.

Professional? You might think so, I wouldn't be so sure. Do you think KA was a happy bunny and 100% amenable throughout all this? I wouldn't be too sure about that either.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The £6m was not a loan, Sluffy, it was a sale. Emerson were bound to be interested, if the price was right, but who said they were 'lined up' or willing to do a lease back on terms favourable to the club?

Yes things do have to be done lawfully and professionally in administrations but can you explain why the administrators were vague about the exact amounts owed to the Eddie Davies Trust and, crucially, significantly misrepresented the amounts owed to Ken Anderson?

Before during and after the administration, Anderson was characterised, in the media and on social media, as the villain whilst seemingly obliged by these actions to appoint additional administrators to the hotel to  protect his own legal position.

At the end of the day it was leaked, you might ask yourself from where, that a deal had been done BEFORE anyone had had the courtesy to check with Anderson's lawyers whether they agreed the terms.

Professional? You might think so, I wouldn't be so sure. Do you think KA was a happy bunny and 100% amenable throughout all this? I wouldn't be too sure about that either.

The £6m might well have been a 'sale' but it had a clause in it to sell back the car park for the same amount something like a year or so later which by that time Anderson was the owner and Anderson (and Eddie?) could not come up with the money to buy it back.

The deal sounded in effect more like a secured loan to me - but yes you are correct it was a sale.

I'm not sure where you seem to think that I somehow believe Ken Anderson was somehow 'amenable throughout' the Administration process - he clearly would not have appointed an Administrator himself to protect his position if he was being 'amenable' would he?

That's certainly what I thought at the time he did so, as you don't have two Administrators (and their costs involved) if there is two 'camps' both 'amenable with each other?

As the saying goes - it's nothing personal, just business!

No I can't explain why Davies's appointed Administrator was vague about the total owed to Eddie, nor the disputed amount claimed to be owed to Anderson, I can only assume that the Administrators didn't find the documentation and finances to both as clear as what they should have been?

I also have no idea why a deal was announced, then retreated from.

I can only assume that Davies' Administrator had either believed Anderson lawyers had signed off on the agreement or someone had jumped the gun believing that was the case but things changed at the last moment without them realising it had?

I can only say as a 'professional' myself that despite my very best efforts throughout my career and despite my checks and double checks on the information presented to me (and which I've asked others to check of my work), some mistakes and misinterpretations did still occur.

We are all human after all.

I've no idea if there was animosity or underhandedness between the two Administrations or if genuine errors, mistakes or misjudgements were made but at the end of the day everything had to be legal - the Administrators are working on behalf of the court.

As for Iles, the ST and the multitude of morons who believe everything they read on social media, well unfortunately that is how the world is these days.

Unfortunately I see the fabric of our society crumbling very quickly these days and to see a Prime Minister of our country repeatedly lie to Parliament, top civil servants turn a blind eye (and participate) to lookdown party's, then who holds the line for honesty and integrity anymore?

Times are changing.

It's not my world anymore.

Sluffy wrote:

The £6m might well have been a 'sale' but it had a clause in it to sell back the car park for the same amount something like a year or so later which by that time Anderson was the owner and Anderson (and Eddie?) could not come up with the money to buy it back.

The deal sounded in effect more like a secured loan to me - but yes you are correct it was a sale.

I'm not sure where you seem to think that I somehow believe Ken Anderson was somehow 'amenable throughout' the Administration process - he clearly would not have appointed an Administrator himself to protect his position if he was being 'amenable' would he?

That's certainly what I thought at the time he did so, as you don't have two Administrators (and their costs involved) if there is two 'camps' both 'amenable with each other?

As the saying goes - it's nothing personal, just business!

No I can't explain why Davies's appointed Administrator was vague about the total owed to Eddie, nor the disputed amount claimed to be owed to Anderson, I can only assume that the Administrators didn't find the documentation and finances to both as clear as what they should have been?

I also have no idea why a deal was announced, then retreated from.

I can only assume that Davies' Administrator had either believed Anderson lawyers had signed off on the agreement or someone had jumped the gun believing that was the case but things changed at the last moment without them realising it had?

I can only say as a 'professional' myself that despite my very best efforts throughout my career and despite my checks and double checks on the information presented to me (and which I've asked others to check of my work), some mistakes and misinterpretations did still occur.

We are all human after all.

I've no idea if there was animosity or underhandedness between the two Administrations or if genuine errors, mistakes or misjudgements were made but at the end of the day everything had to be legal - the Administrators are working on behalf of the court.

As for Iles, the ST and the multitude of morons who believe everything they read on social media, well unfortunately that is how the world is these days.

Unfortunately I see the fabric of our society crumbling very quickly these days and to see a Prime Minister of our country repeatedly lie to Parliament, top civil servants turn a blind eye (and participate) to lookdown party's, then who holds the line for honesty and integrity anymore?

Times are changing.

It's not my world anymore.

Sorry Sluffy I'm not going to labour the point but I'm not buying this 'genuine errors, mistakes or misjudgements' stuff neither do I believe that there was any professional justification in leaking the story that it was all a done deal without Anderson's lawyers agreement.

But it does seem to imply that the delays in finally reaching agreement were unlikely to be because of any obstinacy from the Anderson team. On the contrary, it rather seemed to infer that their agreement could be assumed without even consulting them.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy I'm not going to labour the point but I'm not buying this 'genuine errors, mistakes or misjudgements' stuff neither do I believe that there was any professional justification in leaking the story that it was all a done deal without Anderson's lawyers agreement.

But it does seem to imply that the delays in finally reaching agreement were unlikely to be because of any obstinacy from the Anderson team. On the contrary, it rather seemed to infer that their agreement could be assumed without even consulting them.

I may be misremembering this, but wasn't it someone from the Administrators team that did a tweet or something that broke the news of a 'done deal'?

If so that's clearly not professional.

I've no idea what the story is, I've no idea if things were done deliberately or mistakenly.

I've no idea if Eddie's Administrator believed he was somehow superior to Anderson's and treated him with apparent disdain.

I've no idea who was in the right or wrong.

I've no idea of many, many other things too.

What I do know is that whatever happened, happened, and Eddie, Anderson, the two sets of Administrators are all now long gone and it's all water under the bridge now in terms that FV are now in the fourth year as owners, Eddie's loans have all been settled (other than if we do get a promotion in the next season or two), and Anderson is probably tucked up in his pad in Monaco (although I note that Wanderlust was talking on ww only today about his surprise that Anderson hasn't been assassinated yet).

Whatever sleight you believed has happened has long since passed and everybody involved have moved on.

I don't really know what it is that you are wanting me to say?

Please don't try to minimise the significance of all this, Sluffy. This was no sleight or unfortunate misunderstanding, it was a strategy albeit not a well thought out one. What interests me is why they tried it? What did they expect the outcome to be?

And why did no-one else notice? It was barely concealed.

Has everybody involved moved on? That depends on what you mean by 'everybody', 'involved' or 'moved on'.

Should it all be forgotten? No it shouldn't.

To be totally honest you have completely lost me on this.

I have absolutely no idea what you clearly see that the rest of us can't.

If you want to elaborate please do but if you don't then none of us understands what you are talking about and any replies to you such as mine above are simply not trying 'to minimise the significance of all this' but rather simply 'not understanding what your point is' and that as far as the rest of us see it, something that happened that none of us on here (including myself, but apart from you) really understood and as far as we knew, had come to an end - if not at the point of sale, then when all the key participants left the stage sometime later.

The only participant left as far as I'm aware is Sharon but I can't see how she as the 'purchaser' held any influence over the Administrators actions (whose prime aim is to work in the 'creditors' interest).

PBP also remain but are they classed as a 'participant', as I would see them more as an 'amenable' creditor.

To put it simply Bob, if you are saying should 'this' be forgotten, we don't actually know what the 'this' is, that you are talking about - no matter how 'barely concealed' it was to you.

I think I've explained this before, Sluffy, but lets try again.

Appendix 5 of the Administrators Statement filed on 24 July 2019 is not in agreement either with what Fildraw claimed or Ken Anderson claimed the position to be. (see note 10.1)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00335699/filing-history

Without being fobbed off with some lame excuse, you must ask yourself why? Who was right, who was wrong? Were both Fildraw and Ken Anderson claiming something that was untrue and, not by a small insignificant amount but, by £5-6million?

When you have thought that through, you might also think about how it could possibly be that the total creditors had not increased since the last audited balance sheet in 2017. Wasn't the club running at a loss?

You might also think about how the Blumarble debt seemed to vanish into thin air. Nobody was credited with paying it off and it just disappeared as if by magic!

You might then think about where all this would have left Ken Anderson had he not decided to appoint administrators himself.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I think I've explained this before, Sluffy, but lets try again.

Appendix 5 of the Administrators Statement filed on 24 July 2019 is not in agreement either with what Fildraw claimed or Ken Anderson claimed the position to be. (see note 10.1)

Without being fobbed off with some lame excuse, you must ask yourself why? Who was right, who was wrong? Were both Fildraw and Ken Anderson claiming something that was untrue and by £5-6million ?

When you have thought that true you might also think about how it could possibly be that the total creditors had not increased since the last audited balance sheet in 2017. Wasn't the club running at a loss?

You might also think about how the Blumarble debt seemed to vanish into thin air. Nobody was credited with paying it off and just disappeared as if by magic

You might then think about where all this would have left Ken Anderson had he not decided to appoint administrators himself.

Thank you Bob, I do recall the Administrator stating that both EDT and Anderson's claims as secured creditors were overstated.

I was surprised at this as I would have thought in the case of Eddie's accountants they would know what they were doing and recorded everything accurately.

I wasn't really surprised with Anderson's claim as I could never understand how he could secure the £5m (iirc?) [which Eddie loaned him personally(?) secured against the shares Inner Circle, for ownership of the club] against assets at BWFC which seemed to have been already secured against in full?

I assumed (perhaps wrongly?) that all this was somehow tied into the loan to pay off BluMarble.

I thought maybe the £5m somehow reduced the secured asset Eddie held by taking it out from the total the accountants still considered were there(?) and that in respect of Anderson the full £5m could never have been secured at all (nothing left for him to secure against)- and that's why he ended up settling for whatever he did do in the end (in respect of Eddies Administrator).

I assumed that in someway his Administrator took charge of the hotel - surely there most have been some agreement between EDT and Anderson to have a split Administration - otherwise one Administrator should simply administer the whole of the business's?

If there was not an agreement then the only other way that could be done I assume is that Anderson did have some security over the hotel which gave him the right to appoint his own Administrator? He was also at the time the hotel (and club) owner and so could appoint an Administrator in that right also.

I guess if this was the case it gave him some leverage over EDT's Administrator in that what he may lose on the swings, he may gain back on the roundabouts, so to speak?

I guess one part of EDT's plan might have been seek repayment of Eddie's loan which would end up in default if he couldn't when due, meaning the whole of the club and hotel would revert back to Eddie's estate - meaning Anderson would get nothing out of the loan?

I further guess by appointing his own Administrator he made that less achievable?

Should Anderson have gained out of the £5m loan - probably not.

Should Anderson have to pay £5m from his own pocket back to EDT for the loan - that as far as I can tell, Holdsworth could only having taken out on the clubs assets with Eddie's knowledge/blessing(?) - probably not either (if my summary was correct(?).

Quite frankly Bob I was miles out of my depth on understanding much of what went on - I had few if any facts to go on and could only make guesses and assumptions that may well have been wildly off the mark.

I don't know who were the goodies and baddies in all of this - how could Holdsworth put in £5m of his own money by securing a loan on BWFC assets? Was Eddie involved in this? Why did Eddie loan the money to Anderson to pay it off, why did Anderson try to security it against BWFC assets? How did EDT Administrator determined what security of charges EDT and Anderson have? Why have two Administrations? Was Anderson trying to profit from Eddie's death? Was EDT's Administrator trying to stop Anderson from profiting?

I understood very little of what was going on.

I still don't.

All I thought I knew was that this was all sorted out and we have all moved on from it but now you seem to be telling me we haven't???

I simply don't know what to say anymore.

If there's something you want me to be aware of, then please tell me.

I simply don't know what you want of me?

Slow down, Sluffy. You need to stop typing and start thinking.

Do you honestly recall 'the Administrator stating that both EDT and Anderson's claims as secured creditors were overstated'?

Who do you think appointed the Administrator? Do you mean to say that, despite all the explanations I had provided, you still believed what the Administrators had put in their report even though it made no sense whatsoever?

Fildraw and Anderson's assertions didn't just broadly coincide, they were the only things that made any sense with the small proviso that Fildraw's alleged claim was probably rounded down (for what has all the appearance of obfuscatory reasons) by the Administrator and was probably closer to £18m than £17m.

I have tried patiently to try to explain this, not solely for your benefit, but for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested in the truth. They may be small in number and keep their heads down but I do believe there are some out there.

There is a case for saying that the ends justified the means but lets not fool ourselves into believing things that just ain't true. And if we are talking about who is smart, Ken Anderson may not be everyone's idea of Mr Nice Guy but he was smart enough to take on a club that was in serious free-fall losing the neck end of £1million per month, getting it back into the Championship at the first attempt and staying there for another season against all the odds whilst breaking even by persuading Cardiff City to part with £6million for Gary Madine. Championship teams were losing an average of £10million per season at the time. Its now closer to £15m.

It could never last at BWFC without more money but it was quite an achievement and he did actually hold an AGM where he answered all questions raised by those attending.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Slow down, Sluffy. You need to stop typing and start thinking.

Do you honestly recall 'the Administrator stating that both EDT and Anderson's claims as secured creditors were overstated'?

Who do you think appointed the Administrator? Do you mean to say that, despite all the explanations I had provided, you still believed what the Administrators had put in their report even though it made no sense whatsoever?

Fildraw and Anderson's assertions didn't just broadly coincide, they were the only things that made any sense with the small proviso that Fildraw's alleged claim was probably rounded down (for what has all the appearance of obfuscatory reasons) by the Administrator and was probably closer to £18m than £17m.

I have tried patiently to try to explain this, not solely for your benefit, but for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested in the truth. They may be small in number and keep their heads down but I do believe there are some out there.

There is a case for saying that the ends justified the means but lets not fool ourselves into believing things that just ain't true. And if we are talking about who is smart, Ken Anderson may not be everyone's idea of Mr Nice Guy but he was smart enough to take on a club that was in serious free-fall losing the neck end of £1million per month, getting it back into the Championship at the first attempt and staying there for another season against all the odds whilst breaking even by persuading Cardiff City to part with £6million for Gary Madine. Championship teams were losing an average of £10million per season at the time. Its now closer to £15m.

It could never last at BWFC without more money but it was quite an achievement and he did actually hold an AGM where he answered all questions raised by those attending.

Yes!

Statement of Administrators Proposals (Filed at Companies House 22nd July, 2016)

10.1 Secured Creditors (page 17 of 39)

Fildraw

...The amount outstanding to Fildraw is £10,050,000...  ...however Fildraw believes the sum outstanding is circa £17m...

Anderson

...Balance outstanding to Mr Anderson is £1,578.042...  ...Mr Anderson believes the sum outstanding to be circa £7.5m


Maybe I used the wrong terminology or something but as far as I understood the procedure the Administrator asks creditors to get in touch with him, stating the amount they believe is owed to them.

I presume Fildraw claimed circa £17m was owed to them and Anderson circa £7.5m to him.

If that is how it works and the Administrator rules a lesser sum, then to my mind at least the original claims have been 'overstated'.

EDT appointed one Administrator and Anderson the other.

It's not a question of me believing what the Administrator wrote in his report - it IS what he wrote in his report.

He's seen the books, I haven't.

He's a representative of the court, I ain't.

He's qualified and licenced in his field, I'm not.

He knows what he is doing, I clearly haven't a clue.

Why then should I have had any reason to question his integrity???

As for the discrepancy between what EDT and Anderson expect and received from the Administrator it was circa £7m for EDT (but you are suggesting it is nearer £8m) and £6m for Anderson.

I assume that you are suggesting the discrepancy for both of them would be around £6m and the the BluMarble loan plus interest amounted to something like £6m?

Maybe you are not suggesting that at all???

Maybe the trade creditors had increased by around £6m also from the last accounts prior to Admin and taking the BluMarble debt off the books balanced with the accruing creditor over that period and thus the net result was no changing in creditors outstanding?

Maybe it is nothing of the sort?

As I keep saying I don't know what you expect from me.

I'm not an insolvency expert, I'm not even an accountant, and my background is in the Public Sector.

As far as I know the Administrator is a insolvency practitioner, who has passed professional exams, is registered to a professional body, which regulates to strict rules how they work.

Based on all the above I have no reason at all to doubt his report - have I?

Ok, you may very well see something that doesn't sit right but I don't have your knowledge or experience in this field.

If you want to tell me something then why don't you just spell it out for me?

If you want to lead me to something - then I simply don't even know what I'm looking for let alone recognise it if I accidentally stumbled across it!

Why don't you try seeing things from my point of view and maybe you can get a glimmer of why I have had no reason to question the qualified insolvency experts report, which not only is subject to inspection by his certified governing body but also a document for the court.