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

boltonbonce wrote:
My watch looks fine to me.

If I'm not mistaken, Boncey, your watch gets the time right 24 times every day which is twelve times as many as mine does.

You must have a faulty wind-up one Bob!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy but you are still meandering. Until you understand and accept that the Administrators statement was just plain wrong (in the most significant way) you'll never figure any of it out.

I could quite easily answer each and everyone of your points but it would take more time than I am willing to spend on it and I am far from convinced that it would not just trigger more perambulations.

I am going to put all this on hold for the time being whilst I focus my attention on more pressing and worthwhile tasks before Lady Bobsworth and I depart on our first holiday since COVID.

Meandering am I?

I see myself as being asked questions by you about an insolvency that led to an acquisition of assets of a company that was and is destine for liquidation and which fell into Administration over four years ago.

None of which I know nothing much about and only of interest to me because it effected the team I've supported for over sixty years.

I am though willing to listen and learn from someone who seemed to know more than most of what was going on.

I'm indebted to you for the help and advise you have given me over the years but I have also noted that it has not always been perfect and I've even been able to correct you at times albeit not that often.

I understand you have a position to hold in that you as a professional accountant don't want to be too open with your comments and be seen to be wrong like many other accountants on BWFC social media have and I respect your stance.

The upshot of this is that frequently I am left groping for understanding of the issues completely alone in the dark and I am left with no way of solving them apart from trying to figure out some line of logic based on the little I know.

Is this what you call as me meandering, I see it more as blindly stumbling about, not knowing what I'm really looking for and often having little idea where I need to look for it, or how to find it.

If you chose to help me then thank you, I appreciate it, if you don't then that's up to you - I remain in the dark.

I'm not sure why you've raised the issue about the Administrators actions now at this time, nearly four years later, but I was happy enough to play the game you set and have tried to follow your clues.

I'm sorry if I've disappointed you in how I've gone on and that you've seemingly now left the 'game' by summarising once again what you had said in the past, with your general hypothesis of what you understand to have happened.

I understood your hypothesis the first time around but could not see it proven then - I asked similar questions questions at the time and have done again this time as well.

I'm pleased for you if you can answer each and everyone of my points but you've chosen not to - or rather you have answered some of them previously but still left me none the wiser, your explanations leaving me with more questions than what I'd started with.

I'm no worse of in my knowledge of what happened four years ago this week than what I was a fortnight ago when you raised the issue about EDT secured debt not being settled in full by the Administrator.

If you want to tell us why that was, then do so, if you don't, then don't - if you wanted to have me trying my best to work it out and fail - then you've certainly accomplished that.

I hope you and your wife enjoy your holiday and don't forget to send us at Nuts a post card, and we will see you when you get back.

Safe journey.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:You understand more than I do, Sluffy. I've admitted before that this is pretty much a closed book to me, and when I have tried to educate myself I've painted myself into quite a corner.
It's like that old trope about the boss asking his accountant how the books were looking, and the accountant replying, "How do you want them to look".
It's a world of magic, smoke, and mirrors to me.
I appreciate the efforts Bob and yourself have put into explaining it, but it's all beyond me I'm afraid.

I know it must be hard, Boncey. With so many credible candidates it’s almost impossible to figure out who provided the money to repay Blumarble.
Have you got a little hand on that watch yet?

Was this a little dig aimed at me perhaps?

It is pretty clear that the money to settle BM originated from ED.

You quite rightly pointed out though that neither EDT or KA are shown to be owned what presumably was a loan that someone put into BL in order to settle the debt.

You ask how can that be?

No doubt your line of thinking is that ED loaned it directly to KA who put it in as a loan to BL and the debt was settled - but if that happened why isn't KA shown as a creditor on the books of BL for more than just £1.6m and a few other bits and pieces?

Good question.

I don't know the answer.

But I can come up with at least two ways it could be done.

One (unlikely way) is that the money was converted from a loan to equity by ED, - I can't see however that there was £5m in BL bank account at the time to pay the money out to BM, and I can't see a new deposit of £5m going into the bank account so I doubt that is the answer.

A more simpler one is that it was settled by a third party(entity) away from BL and BM.

That could simply mean KA got the loan off ED and paid it as an individual (and not as part of BL) and settled it with BM directly.

ED could have done the same, I could have done the same too if I had £5m to spare and BM and BL had no objection to me doing so.

It is unlikely this happened however but it would be a valid answer to the question you set.

So yes 'credible candidates' are few if any other than ED, but there are methods it could be done with his money to answer the problem you posed.

The way I assume you believe the answer to be (and no doubt the right one) was that KA put the loan into BL and BL then settled with BM but the Administrator for some reason unknown to us declined to accept it as such and ruled against KA being credited for it (other than the £1.6m he was credited for).

My issue is that it can't be 'proved' from the information in the public domain and what is more neither EDT or KA have seemingly appealed to the Administrators regulatory bodies watchdog that they've both wrongly been docked £7.5m each.

Why didn't they?

Why instead did they seemingly accept this 'wrong' decision off the Administrator that cost them a multi-million pound loss each?

On what grounds did the Administrator take his decision to strike off £7.5m from EDT and KA's claims in the first place?

Maybe I am 'meandering' again but I can't prove your hypothesis with questions like these unanswered.  I suspect you can't either.

And I dare say if the roles were reversed and I put up a similar hypothesis without answering such pertinent concerns, that you would be the first to question it.

And quite rightly too.

Back from hols with batteries partly re-charged, Sluffy, so let's try again. It may help understanding if I ask if you have ever purchased a property with the aid of a mortgage? If so did the mortgage advance go through your bank account and show up on your bank statements?

What if you re-mortgaged? Would the new funds and repayment of the old mortgage show up on your bank statements?

Not very likely, is it? The transactions, loan agreements and security for the loans would normally all be dealt with by the respective solicitors. The same goes for companies re-mortgaging. 

When Eddie Davies agreed (reluctantly I expect) to advance money to repay BluMarble the transactions were not likely to show on Ken Anderson's bank statements nor those of Bolton Wanderers or Burnden Leisure. That does not mean that the transactions never took place. Neither does it mean that the Administrator was entitled to ignore them.

The Administrator's statements on all this were imo couched in most unsatisfactory terms but they had a number of significant effects, especially for Ken Anderson. Any claim that Anderson could have easily got the Administrator's statement overturned seems to me misguided, if not naive. If it had been the easiest course of action he would surely have taken it and he, better than most, knew how things actually worked in the world of insolvency.

The terms were Eddie's but Anderson had certainly put himself at risk. He may have expected that the amounts he owed to Eddie had been secured (c.£7.5m in total) and that, whilst Eddie was alive, his debt to Eddie was unlikely to be called in.

Thanks Bob.

Hope you enjoyed your little break, my daughter is flying back from Aquitaine today from her break in France too - I envy you both!

Thank you again for your advice and guidance, it does seem that one of my trains of thought above was on the right lines at one point...

Sluffy wrote:A more simpler one is that it was settled by a third party(entity) away from BL and BM.

That could simply mean KA got the loan off ED and paid it as an individual (and not as part of BL) and settled it with BM directly.

ED could have done the same, I could have done the same too if I had £5m to spare and BM and BL had no objection to me doing so.

It is unlikely this happened however but it would be a valid answer to the question you set.

So yes 'credible candidates' are few if any other than ED, but there are methods it could be done with his money to answer the problem you posed.

Where I went wrong though was that I couldn't see how the Administrator could legally take into account the business transactions of entities away from Burnden Leisure/BWFAAC - I still can't if I'm honest.

If I loaned the money to KA for instance to pay off the BL loan to BM, how would the Administrator deal with it then - certainly not from reducing my secured creditor status against BL as he has done with EDT, because I don't hold any.  My loan is against KA personally and secured against his company that owns the club.

KA would be in hock to me for the £7.5m (I thought the loan that ED made to KA and secured against him personally was £5m - not £7.5m?).

I don't understand how it is legal that this personal loan, contracted by two legal entities (ED and KA) can be somehow subsumed into contracts between Moonshift Ltd and BL for Eddies secured loan to the club, and KA and BL for KA's (attempted - I also still don't understand how he can secure against fully secured assets anyway?).


Maybe my statement about appealing the Administrators decisions is misguided and naive but there does seem to be an Appeals procedure and if I thought that the Administrator had left me unfairly £7.5m short, then I would use it - I don't doubt everyone in the same position would if there was no alternative way to resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction.

I don't doubt KA was left holding the baby when ED unexpectedly passed away and it would seem more than likely that ED never expected the BM money to be repaid - but then why did he structure the loan as he did in the way that he had, which he had never done with his previous loans to KA?

If Eddie truly didn't expect KA to repay the loan, then why didn't he simply settle with BM directly and not loan the money to KA?  

Alternatively ED could simply have put the money in to BL as an unsecured loan, again without loaning it to KA, or even loaning it as a secured loan against assets that were already fully secured in the way KA ended up doing.

It also seemed that the way ED structured this personal loan to KA 'forced' (if that is the right word?) KA to 'protect' himself by putting the loan money into BL as a secured loan.

It also 'forced' KA to appoint the second Administrator to protect his position because it seems EDT wasn't going to waive this £5m/£7.5m loan.

All this seems to my mind to suggest there was something going on here from Eddie that was different from all the previous loans he had made to KA, maybe he had hoped to recoup this £5m/£7.5m from a future sale of BL - perhaps in the same way as the PBP loan seems to have hung about on the books until the day that someone can pay it off?

It would seem the Administrator brokered some sort of a compromise amongst all parties involved and that involve writing down the secured assets claimed by both EDT and KA.

I guess he got some form of legal agreements from both sides to cover his actions in doing this too?


Anyway all water under the bridge I would have thought but you implied earlier on that there are still issues arising from this that still effect the club to this day?

Clearly there is something else then that I am not understanding?

Not for the first time too I hear you thinking!


Welcome back by the way.

Sluffy wrote:Thanks Bob.

Hope you enjoyed your little break, my daughter is flying back from Aquitaine today from her break in France too - I envy you both!

Thank you again for your advice and guidance, it does seem that one of my trains of thought above was on the right lines at one point...



Where I went wrong though was that I couldn't see how the Administrator could legally take into account the business transactions of entities away from Burnden Leisure/BWFAAC - I still can't if I'm honest.

If I loaned the money to KA for instance to pay off the BL loan to BM, how would the Administrator deal with it then - certainly not from reducing my secured creditor status against BL as he has done with EDT, because I don't hold any.  My loan is against KA personally and secured against his company that owns the club.

KA would be in hock to me for the £7.5m (I thought the loan that ED made to KA and secured against him personally was £5m - not £7.5m?).

I don't understand how it is legal that this personal loan, contracted by two legal entities (ED and KA) can be somehow subsumed into contracts between Moonshift Ltd and BL for Eddies secured loan to the club, and KA and BL for KA's (attempted - I also still don't understand how he can secure against fully secured assets anyway?).


Maybe my statement about appealing the Administrators decisions is misguided and naive but there does seem to be an Appeals procedure and if I thought that the Administrator had left me unfairly £7.5m short, then I would use it - I don't doubt everyone in the same position would if there was no alternative way to resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction.

I don't doubt KA was left holding the baby when ED unexpectedly passed away and it would seem more than likely that ED never expected the BM money to be repaid - but then why did he structure the loan as he did in the way that he had, which he had never done with his previous loans to KA?

If Eddie truly didn't expect KA to repay the loan, then why didn't he simply settle with BM directly and not loan the money to KA?  

Alternatively ED could simply have put the money in to BL as an unsecured loan, again without loaning it to KA, or even loaning it as a secured loan against assets that were already fully secured in the way KA ended up doing.

It also seemed that the way ED structured this personal loan to KA 'forced' (if that is the right word?) KA to 'protect' himself by putting the loan money into BL as a secured loan.

It also 'forced' KA to appoint the second Administrator to protect his position because it seems EDT wasn't going to waive this £5m/£7.5m loan.

All this seems to my mind to suggest there was something going on here from Eddie that was different from all the previous loans he had made to KA, maybe he had hoped to recoup this £5m/£7.5m from a future sale of BL - perhaps in the same way as the PBP loan seems to have hung about on the books until the day that someone can pay it off?

It would seem the Administrator brokered some sort of a compromise amongst all parties involved and that involve writing down the secured assets claimed by both EDT and KA.

I guess he got some form of legal agreements from both sides to cover his actions in doing this too?


Anyway all water under the bridge I would have thought but you implied earlier on that there are still issues arising from this that still effect the club to this day?

Clearly there is something else then that I am not understanding?

Not for the first time too I hear you thinking!


Welcome back by the way.

Sorry Sluffy but I think you may have misunderstood quite a lot of this. The debate about who 'saved the club' has not gone away whilst the hatred of KA, fomented in large part by the BN with help from the ST, remains every bit as strong as ever.

Ken Anderson, for the most part, was reliable in his public comments and his relationship with Eddie seems to have been quite close until Eddie's death. His absence from Eddie's Memorial Service, on the other hand, seems to imply that it wasn't quite the same with Eddie's family after Eddie's demise.

This is what KA had to say on the club website the day after Eddie died:

Bolton Wanderers Chairman Ken Anderson has paid the following tribute to Eddie Davies CBE who sadly passed away yesterday.



Ken said: “Yesterday’s tragic news of the passing of Ed Davies was a great shock to me as we had been talking on and off all day on Monday and it is a very sad day for the Bolton Family.
“Ed, a lifelong fan of Bolton Wanderers, presided over the club during arguably its greatest ever period and latterly provided great advice, support and counsel for me during my two and a half years at the club.
“We were in daily contact and at all times I found him to be a calm and thoughtful man, whether we were talking about football or financial matters and we had a great deal of banter particularly over players, cars and number plates.
“Ed will be deeply missed particularly on match days, where he still followed the club home and away.
“We all owe Ed a tremendous amount of gratitude and our thoughts are with Sue and the family and friends during this very sad time.”
The club will be paying its respects to Eddie during Saturday’s Sky Bet Championship match against QPR at the University of Bolton Stadium, with details set to be announced shortly.

The club doesn't seem to have mentioned Sue's death earlier this year.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy but I think you may have misunderstood quite a lot of this. The debate about who 'saved the club' has not gone away whilst the hatred of KA, fomented in large part by the BN with help from the ST, remains every bit as strong as ever.

Ken Anderson, for the most part, was reliable in his public comments and his relationship with Eddie seems to have been quite close until Eddie's death. His absence from Eddie's Memorial Service, on the other hand, seems to imply that it wasn't quite the same with Eddie's family after Eddie's demise.

I've never claimed to understand what went on, I don't claim to understand what is going on under FV's ownership either come to that.

You asked me, indeed challenged me (at least it seems to me that way) as to why the Administrator "wrongly" wrote down £7.5m of the claims of both EDT and KA's secured creditor status in BL.

Nothing to do about 'who saved the club'???

I don't think anybody denies Eddie's money paid off BM if that's what you are on about?

As for the £7.5m's...

To the best of my ability (I am only an interested amateur with NO previous knowledge of the laws on Accusations and Mergers, no experience of companies under Administration, no qualifications as such in accountancy, and with my whole professional career being in the public sector) I've done my best to follow the clues and leads you have set.

I do however have certain skills, I was a company secretary (these days the term compliance officer seems to be more widely used) during my professional career, and I've always been one to learn and understand things, even now, hence why I've tried to accept your 'challenge'.

I know one other thing also.

I know the the Administrator has legal powers to to do stuff that no one else has, for instance he can terminate contracts.

He has this power also over charges to the company.

https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/freedomofinformationtechnical/technicalmanual/ch49-60/chapter%2056-1/Part%206/Part%206.htm


From the way I've read and understood your narrative to date, it seems to me that you believe the Administrator was wrong to rule against the £7.5 million claims of EDT and KA.

I find this view difficult to accept.

My reason being that two sets of professional advisors (those of EDT and KA) have both advised their clients that the Administrator DID have the powers to do so.

That neither EDT or KA took any action that was open to them to contest the Administrators actions.

That both EDT and KA were apparently 'happy' to walk away, (even though both sides firmly believed they had been 'robbed' of £7.5m each???).

It simply did not make sense to me that BOTH sides would meekly accept a £7.5m loss due to the Administrator acting beyond his legal powers (ultra vires).

I don't believe he did, I believe EDT and KA accept he didn't either, which seems to suggest your premise is flawed?


As you know I've banged on for ages as to how could someone (KA) set a secured charge against a security that has already been fully secured against?

The principle is clearly wrong.

What would the Administer rule on this?

Might he consider the claim for a secured charge to be invalid, and the charge be deemed instead to be a floating one?

If so I refer you to point 56.1.64 of his powers, (Power to challenge antecedent transactions) which states this...

Certain floating charges created within a year of the date the company entered administration may also be declared invalid

Insolvency Act 1986 section 245


I don't know if I'm on the right track here but if I am it could well explain his ruling out of KA's £7.5m claim.

Maybe the ramifications of this would somehow also apply to EDT's claim also, I don't know.

I don't know because I'm not party to the full knowledge of the legal powers of an Administrator acting for a company in insolvency and I've not had access to the records and documentations of what has actually happened behind the scenes at BL.

And as far as I, know, you aren't aware either?

I suggest therefore that your view that the Administrator acted beyond his legal powers (ultra vires) is unsafe.

Sorry, Sluffy, but I don't believe the administrators statement of affairs was wrong. I know it was wrong.

If Ken Anderson had borrowed the neck end of £5m to repay Blumarble it was impossible for him to be owed less than £1.6M. I would add that it was also impossible for the club's total debts to be as low as the Administrators claimed.

Curiously the notes to the administrators statement even disclosed the fact that both Ken Anderson and EDT disputed their statement. Its tempting to think that EDT's lawyers might have played some part in this, suggesting or even insisting on the additional note.

I understand that you have limited knowledge of business finance in companies and the associated accounting issues but you also seem to have been getting yourself befuddled over the significance, actuality and meaning of the security for loans in this case, not to mention how directors loans arise in companies.

The administrators wording was noticeably woolly but did not disguise EDT's claim that it was owed c.£7 more than the £10m that remained in the books of Burnden Leisure.

The claims of EDT and KA were complementary and inextricably linked. KA's claim wasn't quite so woolly though. He quite clearly claimed that he was owed £7.5m. He would later claim that he wrote it off. That was true albeit in circumstances that EDT wouldn't be chasing him for the money he owed Eddie.

Its not impossible that KA used some of his own money to fund the club but I think it unlikely. More likely that KA's £7.5m was the total of amounts provided by Eddie in loans to KA, used initially to keep the business going and, immediately before Eddie's death, repaying the Blumarble debt. In simple terms, £2.5m to fund cash flow shortages prior to the Madine sale and £5m for the Blumarble debt.

One upshot of all this was that Ken Anderson would have been unsecured in relation to any loans advanced by Eddie prior to the Blumarble pay-off which seems to have resulted in KA wisely taking steps to secure the lot.

Thank you Bob.

Yes I have limited knowledge (very limited if I am being honest) on company business finance particularly in the area of Directors loans, I am not an accountant, and am "befuddled over the significance, actuality and meaning of the security for loans" in general and specifically in this case.

I have said all this right from the start, remember.

I am however a qualified Company Secretary of many years standing who specialised in the public sector and as such understand the principles of law.

I don't doubt, and never have, that you know what you are talking about and that if say that the Administrators statement of affairs were wrong, then they were wrong in 'accountancy' terms.

They however may NOT be wrong in 'Insolvency Administrative' terms.

The Administrator of insolvent companies have legal powers to negate actions and contracts.

He can rewrite the story if you like and put the clock back to what he believes to be what things should have been...

Ch 31.4A: ANTECEDENT RECOVERIES – PREFERENCES AND TRANSACTIONS AT AN UNDERVALUE

31.4A.1 Introduction – general

The main purpose of liquidation and bankruptcy is to effect an orderly and equitable realisation of assets for the general benefit of creditors and contributories.  If some act occurs in the run-up to the insolvency which leads to one creditor being treated more favourably than another, the transaction may well be one which gives rise to recovery rights by an administrator, liquidator or trustee. Similarly, if a person other than a creditor has benefited from the company or bankrupt to the detriment of creditors generally, the Act may provide a remedy.  These remedies would generally be termed “antecedent recoveries”. The Act provides an administrator, liquidator or trustee with opportunities to recover assets/monies and/or to avoid certain events (e.g. the granting of charges) for the benefit of all creditors.


https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/freedomofinformationtechnical/technicalmanual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part4A/Ch31-4A%20Intro.htm


It clearly seemed to me that the Administrator's decision was that KA's last minute charge on security of circa £7.5m did not meet with the Administrators professional interpretation of the laws apply to insolvency that he was working under.

(Even I can see that you can't secure against and asset that someone else has fully secured against!  If you could then the asset when sold could NOT settle everyone's charges against it in full!  If all charge holders were to receive an equal share in what the asset brought in, then the original charge holder would receive less than he was entitled to and the latter charge holder (KA) would have benefitted unfairly - or as the insolvency regulations state - " one creditor being treated more favourably than another").

You are understandably looking at this through the eyes of an accountant, and I suggest not accepting that the Administrator has legally moved the goalposts as per the insolvency law he is working to.


I'm pretty sure in my 'befuddlement' that the Administrator has quite rightly and legally ruled out KA's action of attempting to become a secured creditor for circa £7.5m.

How and why he did the same for EDT, I don't know, but there was clearly some line of cause and effect leading to it, once he ruled out KA's.

Clearly (to me at least) everything was done legally, and ultimately to all parties satisfaction - simply because everyone drew a line under it and moved on.

If you want to continue to 'know' that the Administrator acted wrongly, that's up to you, but it seems to me that he quite clearly had the insolvency powers to strike down KA's circa £7.5m secured claim and everything else flowed from there.

Can I prove that, no.

Do I want to prove it, no.

(I couldn't anyway without having access to his papers or that to KA and EDT legal teams.).

Am I befuddled, often.

Did I have my thinking head on and listening ears - I guess I never know until you or someone else tells me I haven't?

Do I care, no not at all, I like puzzles and have done my best to crack this one - for me its just fun.

Did I solve the puzzle - good question.

In your eyes I've clearly not but your eyes that you are looking through are those of an accountant.

I believe the answer to the puzzle is looking at it through the eyes of an insolvency specialist.

I don't have those eyes either but I do think that is the key to correctly cracking the puzzle and understanding what went on and why.

I think that this is the best I can do on this.

Sorry, Sluffy, but whilst you continue to meander, chase shadows or run up cul-de-sacs and blind alleys you are, I'm afraid, further clouding waters that are already murkier than they ever should have been. 

Not, I have to say, with the same malice aforethought as the many that have propounded their unfounded theories on the topics of Eddie Davies or Ken Anderson but muddying the waters nonetheless.

P.S. Burnden Leisure no longer exists. It was dissolved earlier this month but its role in Bolton Wanderers history should not be forgotten still less distorted as it consistently was and still is by Iles of the Beeno and assorted acolytes.

P.P.S. Eddie Davies did manage to stave off administration during the remainder of his lifetime but not by heeding the advice of any retired footballer or 'esteemed' local hack.

Fine.

If I'm muddying some waters or other then I apologise.

If I'm meandering, chasing shadows or running up cul-de-sacs, then it's my time I'm wasting away, no one else's.

And I've only been doing it because you set me the challenge in the first place!

I wouldn't have been doing this water muddying, shadow chasing or anything else otherwise.

Insolvency practitioners have the legal powers to act as 'change agents' to effectively put back things to how they should have been, in the eyes of the law.

I suggest that this is more likely to have occurred than some larger conspiracy that you believe has been going on for some time (and I think believes to persist still to this day?) and that involved the Administrator acting somehow strangely(?) or however you worded/implied it was.

Maybe you are right.

Then again maybe I'm right (solely in respect of the Administrators course of actions, I'm not talking about any historical events, I don't know enough to comment on them, or to have formed any views myself).

I don't believe either of us can conclusively prove our opinion about the Administrators striking down of the £7.5m's.

I'm not really bothered who may be looking in to the waters that I have inadvertently muddied, as I'm not trying to make any point other than to reply to the question you set me as to why the Administrator ruled out EDT and KA's secured charges of circa £7.5m each.

I'm not on anyone's side I'm neither pro Eddie or anti Eddie, pro KA or anti KA, pro the Administrators decision or anti the Administrators decision.

The Administrator has legal powers that he can use, the Administrator actions can be appealed against, the Administrators actions in this event were accepted and not appealed against.

Two separate legal teams must (I assume) have advised their clients (EDT and KA) that the Administrators striking out of £7.5m of each of their claims was legal.

Why not challenge it otherwise, we are talking about a £7.5m hit to both parties remember!

If there really are some people looking in to these waters that I've muddied, then I'm sorry if I may have put questions in their minds that may not have been there otherwise.

I don't think it is such a bad thing for people to become aware of other alternatives to situations that they may not been known to them otherwise, do you?

Obviously if I am talking bollocks, yes you would, but I'm not, I've quoted you Insolvency legislation available to insolvency practitioners and which (on the face of it) has been used to at least rule out KA's claim for circa £7.5m.

Did the Administrator apply the law correctly, I don't know but clearly assumed he did.

Otherwise why did nobody contest it?

Anyway I'll leave that for you to debate with the water watchers whose water I've been clouding, as I've answered the question you set me to the best of my abilities and one that I don't believe you can disprove, or you would have done so by now.

Oh and hello to any water watchers out there!

I am ever the optimist, Sluffy, but sadly I have to conclude that if you haven't been able to grasp the facts by now I hold out little prospect that you ever will. But then I can't quite grasp your apparent fixation that an Administrator is the closest thing there is to Caesar's wife in the modern world.

It has become clear though, even to a small number of BN readers, that FV never had sufficient funds to pay the secured creditors the amounts they were owed and that getting a deal through at all was dependent on the Eddie Davies Trust writing off most of the amounts owed to it. In the end, EDT agreed to settle for £5.5m, later settling for a meagre £3m of the c.£17.5m it was actually owed at the time of Eddie's death.

Brett Warburton did not, at the time, write off any of his debt and neither did PBP but it seems that PBP has subsequently been willing to write off the interest on the debt with BW's debt settled via a sale of land at Lostock, following the grant of planning approval.

On the matter of the death of Sue Davies, I feel sure that the club will have spoken to the family regarding their wishes.

Bob, this was what you asked of me...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
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?

...and this (and only this) is what I've attempted to answer you on.

I've not been pro or anti Eddie Davies or Ken Anderson, I've not involved Bret Warburton or Prescot Business Park, I've not brought in the demise of Burnden Leisure, I've not claimed Eddie Davies allowed the club to fall into Administration during his life time, I've not claimed Iles knew what he was talking about, I've not said that Holdsworth could teach anything to Eddie as to how to run a business, I've not mentioned anything as to why the club has not marked Sue Davies death, I've accepted gracefully that you consider that I don't have my thinking head on, or my listening ears, that I'm befuddled, that I meander, chase shadows, run up cul-de-sacs and blind alleys and that I am clouding and muddying the waters - all of which you have replied to me in (presumably?) your way of rubbishing my answer to your question.

Why all the deflection???

If you don't like my answer, then simply say so.

If I'm wrong, then simply give me the right answer.

If you don't want to give me the right answer then why ask me the question in the first place?

I'm beginning to think the only 'right' answer is the one you want 'hear', the one that fits in with your perceived (or real?) agenda that the Bolton News has against Eddie Davies.

I've no idea if there is or isn't a decade or more. of an agenda from the Bolton News and staff against Eddie Davies and family (presumably why they and/or FV haven't paid public tribute to the death of his widow, Sue???) and if so why an independent and reputable, insolvency specialist company appointed to Administer a financially distressed company (Burnden Leisure - which has now been struck off and liquidated), would be prepared to somehow partake in this apparent conspiracy and act (illegally?) against their professional ethics, their professional body, and risk censure from formal complaints and investigations of them thereof, to deny to two separate legal professional firms advising their clients that the striking down of £7.5m each of their respective clients money was NOT an illegal action beyond the power of the Administrator (ultra vires) to do!!!

It doesn't make any rational sense, does it???

It seems more reasonable (and legal) to believe the Administrator DID in fact comply with Insolvency law, DID have grounds to write down KA's believed security by circa £7.5m, which in turn had the cause to write down EDT's claim by the same amount too.

I'm sorry if that is NOT the answer you want to hear, I'm sorry if I've not lived up to your expectations, and I'm sorry if you think I should somehow kowtow to you because you KNOW better than me as to what you are talking about.

I dare say you do BUT it doesn't make you infallible, it doesn't mean that I am ALWAYS wrong and you are ALWAYS right, and it doesn't explain why KA and EDT walked away with both taking a massive £7.5m hit and not even trying to challenge this in anyway.

If you believe the Administrator MISREPRESENTED his case - and you do...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
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?

...then why didn't KA's legal team take action to fight and recoup his £7.5m then???

Same with EDT too?

If my answer doesn't meet up with what YOU believe happened, then your 'view' certainly doesn't meet up with what I conclude probably did happen.

And I don't care if you think I'm a thicky, numbskull, or a 'Walter' or whatever, I've answer your question as honestly as I know how to and if you can't accept that, or even give your own explanation as to why the Administrator acted 'illegally', then I suggest your case is not as strong as you clearly believed it to be.

I don't believe the Administrator is akin to Caesar's wife, I believe he made a decision that was legal, and base that on the evidence that the two parties involved who had money at stake that totaled £15m ACCEPTED it and DID NOT make the slightest attempt to challenge it or legally recoup their money!!!

Why wouldn't they if they were right and the Administrator was wrong???

Can you see KA walking away from £7.5m of his own money if he thought he'd been gypped out of it???

Which he needed to PERSONALLY (out of his own pocket) repay Eddies loan to EDT?

Not a chance, I would suggest, not a chance...

It seems to me the Administrator had good reason to strike down the circa £7.5m and did so, and everything else flowed from there.

There may well have been agreements away from the Administrator that satisfied KA but the bottom line is neither he or EDT contested the Administrators decision - I therefore can't see on what grounds you believed him to have deliberately or accidently "misrepresented" amounts owed to KA.


Misrepresent
verb

Give a false or misleading account of the nature of.

There's summat up if you can't get your head round this, Sluffy. It could it be that you are out of your depth. I think you are but you're threshing around like a man in a panic in the shallow end of a swimming pool.

Its quite simple. The Administrators misstated the true figures by £5m to £6m and Ken Anderson was not going to leave himself exposed to any claim from EDT that he could not recover from Burnden Leisure. Neither would anyone else.

And for heaven sake, do you really need to be reminded of Ken Anderson's history with the Insolvency Service?

Thanks Bob.

I've never made any secret of not understanding much of this or being out of my depth.

I've never doubted your held an opinion that the Administrator 'mistreated' KA's security - in fact that was the question you set me to try to refute - and I've never doubted that KA acted to protect his financial position, or indeed had a past history that included an 8 year ban from being a Director of a company.

Maybe I am someone thrashing around like a man in a panic in the shallow end of a swimming pool.

But and even after ALL of that, I have been able to give a valid explanation as to why the Administrator could well have acted legally and validly in the way he did.

I can even quote the Insolvency Act giving him the power to do so.

Am I barking up the wrong tree, well you can't prove I'm not, and you can't explain why an independent and highly respected insolvency practitioners company's, trained and experienced employee, should act in a 'false and misleading way' as you proclaim that they have, and you can't give a motive as why they/he did so, other than some perceived longstanding conspiracy by multiple actors against the Davies family stretching back years (and now you seem to be suggesting(?) as well some sort of status quo/State/Companies Houses/Insolvency Service/football authority, 'revenge' (served cold?) on Anderson for past misbehaviour???).

Considering that you are the accountancy expert and I'm merely your most junior sorcerers apprentice, who doesn't wear his thinking head much, put on his listening ears, who is befuddled, who runs up blind alleys, out of my depth, and thrashing around like a man in a blind panic in the shallow end of a swimming pool, that I suggest that I am the one who can put forward a line of justification in law as to the Administrators action...

...and you can't!

(or rather you haven't even tried to, because it wouldn't fit in with your preconceived and fixed model you have on what you 'believe' did happen and why).

If you had put your views to one side and treated the Administrators actions as being legitimate rather than 'misrepresentation' than I'm sure you would have found the same legislative powers open to him, that I have.

Trouble in paradise between our love birds i see 

Norpig wrote:Trouble in paradise between our love birds i see 

Norpig wrote:Trouble in paradise between our love birds i see 

Nah, I don't think so.

You know me by now, I like to go with facts if I can.

You know Bob too, he doesn't stand fools gladly.

All I'm saying (well 'answering' his question he set me really) was why I believe it is quite probable that the Administrator acted in good faith and his actions were based on Insolvency legislation apparently open to him.

I kind of think Bob's a bit exasperated with me for questioning his views on the Administrator acting in a way he see's it, which namely is the Administrator (deliberately?) 'misrepresenting' things.

The way I see it is that the Administrator had legitimate legal powers to strike down KA's claim of £7.5m, whilst Bob is of an opinion that he acted 'falsely'.

I also note that two separate companies of legal advisors (to KA and EDT respectively) didn't seem to challenge the Administrators decision and that and that neither KA or EDT take any action to 'appeal' the Administrators decision which cost them circa £7.5m each.

I tend to think this supports my line of reasoning.

Why wouldn't you challenge it if you really did think you'd been gypped out of £7.5m?  (The appeal process seemingly to be free to do so?)

I don't believe Bob has yet disproved that the Administrator didn't have the legal  right to strike down KA's claim for security of circa £7.5m, and if so can't rubbish my line of logic (other than to correctly point out my lack of knowledge in general over the whole thing - in fact I don't believe I would even have got to the point of 'challenging' him (if that is what I am doing - I just see it as simply answering a question set by him), without his great knowledge and substantial help up to the point that I've now managed to get to!

Even now I can't say that I am right and Bob is wrong, nor am I claiming that - indeed he could well be correct and the Administrator 'could' have been misrepresenting things.

I am saying thought that there is another way to look at this, (which has not yet been shot down so far), that would apparently show that the Administrator did indeed have the legal powers to strike down the £7.5m of KA's and would explain why KA and EDT (and their respective legal teams) accepted what he did and have not appealed against it.

I don't think that is anything for Bob and I to fall out over, it's simply what professionals do when we have conflicting views to each other.

And let's face it, Bob's record of being right to mine is probably something like 50 to 1 (maybe be more) BUT I 'do' occasionally am able to get things right once in a while - and this may well be one of them.

Who knows?

I don't believe either of us can prove our case without seeing the Administrators reasons for striking down the £7.5m and that is not in the public domain to see.

There's an old saying, Sluffy, that says, "Don't convince yourself that you are Captain Webb when you are out of your depth in the paddling pool."



 But if you can find your listening ears and thinking head you might just be able to figure out how a creditor balance of nearly £5m can disappear from a company balance sheet without it being owed to somebody else.

You could try asking Boncey, if you're still confused. He knows a thing or two about accountancy.

Alternatively you could take a quick course in basic double-entry bookkeeping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm9BECuNbkw