Did we dodge a bullet?

certainly bears out what someone who really was itk thought about the man

A FORMER business associate of the investment firm that took over Bolton [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has been jailed for his part in an extensive loan and mortgage fraud racket.
Michael Collins, of Leigh Road in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], was one of the minor conspirators in a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ruse carried out in The Potteries.
Before he could finally be brought to trial he spent six months in prison for contempt of court for faking health problems to try to frustrate proceedings.
Collins was involved at one time with Dean Holdsworth's Sports Shield Investments (SSI) as it entered into negotiations to take control of the Whites — although he never held an official position with either the company or club and his link with SSI was severed before the takeover deal was struck.
The 31-year-old was convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud and production of fraudulent documents at a trial at Warwick Crown Court last month and was jailed for four years and three months on Friday.
Collins was described in court as the "commercial loan broker" and the "conduit" between main player Mehboob Akhtar, also known as Saint Pirwali Pandariman, and his daughter Rushbamani Akhtar.
Staffordshire Constabulary's investigation with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) focused on the financing of 70 different properties, both commercial and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], in the Fenton area of Stoke-on-Trent.
During the lengthy investigation it came to light that mortgages obtained in Akhtar's name were fraudulent and he had lied on application forms about his earnings, his address, his marital status and his dependants.
Source Bolton news

Well well....who'd have thunk that, eh....?

And just as an aside, despite this piece stating that Collins "never held an official position with SSI", he was initially described by the BN as its "co-founder" when it ran the story containing that now infamous picture of Collins and Holdsworth forming the bread in a John Disley sandwich in a box at The Macron.

Throw into the mix the fact that his face was initially all over the SSI website at the time they were sniffing round the club and that he was never far from Holdsworth's side all through that initial process and I think we can all draw our own conclusions regarding his level of involvement in SSI, despite the BN's efforts to re-write history to the contrary.

This bit from an article in the BN almost 12 months ago would tend to suggest that his involvement was slightly greater than merely as some peripheral, bit part player who didn't hold any authority within SSI:

"Sports Shield Investments, the company co-owned by ex-Whites striker Dean Holdsworth and his business partner Michael Collins, met with the club’s new financial consultant Trevor Birch yesterday to finalise details on their offer to Eddie Davies for ownership of the club."

But now suddenly, because it turns out he's a convicted criminal and was actually committing the fraud which resulted in him being banged up at the same time as SSI were trying to buy the club, we are supposed to accept the BN's assertion that he was never involved in the first place?

Full article here:

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

Well remembered bread. By nature I'm usually a bit Pollyanna and always look on the bright side of life (there's an earworm for rest of day for you, you're welcome) but I still have niggling doubts about long term prosperity of our team...no accounts filed, not enough directors, an obvious though not made public fall out between Dean and Anderson, a few dodgy characters round the periphery, all the progress on field counts for nowt unless the foundations are right.

Agree with you there Amanda. Were happily building a castle on what could well be quicksand. As long as we don't lo0ok too closely, I'm sure we'll be fine 

I view things the complete opposite!

The biggest running cost of the club is the wages and clearly they are getting paid otherwise we would soon hear about it (remember the Lion of Vienna/ST sounding off about it some months back, stirring the non existence shit up, as all the wages were pay on time - as they always have under Andersons watch).

Clearly income/Season Ticket sales, aren't enough to cover the ongoing monthly expenditure - so someone is putting money into the club.

Again, no one has been venting off about the club selling any of its assets (as per again the LoV/ST previous times) - and nothing seems to be shown at Companies House, that we've taken a QuickQuid loan or similar from 'last resort' lenders, so the money must be coming from the pockets of the directors.

As Holdsworth hasn't any money - that must me Anderson.

Why then would Anderson be putting money into the club (he's no previous allegiance to the Wanderers, before he bought into it) other than to presumably make money from it in due course?

I don't think the accounts have really been an issue - I fully expect them to be signed off before his Q and A meeting in a few days time - and I don't think the issue with Holdsworth (who incidentally is the one giving the ST and LoV the inside story imo) is significant either as put simply one of the directors is putting money into the club - and one is not - so he who pays the piper picks the tune.

So I think Anderson not only knows what he is doing but has the financial muscle to deliver it too!

I guess time will tell which of our opposite views of the future is correct!

Ooooh, fight! I disagree sluffster, and base my argument on your main premise about funding. I'd be surprised if season ticket other ticket sales were budgeted to be more than 20% of expenditure in reality. Despite ffp rules, the income v expenditure percentage is open to manipulation, and that is what all businesses do. It's a big assumption that any shortfall is made up by directors contribution, it should be lessened by commercial activity, and as the rules about loans are now different from in my time, it is unlikely any director can be putting money in hoping for a return on it. The only way of profiting is via an increase in share value. I agree that ongoing liabilities are being paid, but stand by my initial statement, I don't think the foundation is there for long term sustainability. Hope you are right!

Chairmanda wrote:Ooooh, fight! I disagree sluffster, and base my argument on your main premise about funding. I'd be surprised if season ticket other ticket sales were budgeted to be more than 20% of expenditure in reality. Despite ffp rules, the income v expenditure percentage is open to manipulation, and that is what all businesses do. It's a big assumption that any shortfall is made up by directors contribution, it should be lessened by commercial activity, and as the rules about loans are now different from in my time, it is unlikely any director can be putting money in hoping for a return on it. The only way of profiting is via an increase in share value. I agree that ongoing liabilities are being paid, but stand by my initial statement, I don't think the foundation is there for long term sustainability. Hope you are right!

I don't think we are saying vastly different things really.

What I was trying to say is Season Tickets and gate receipts alone could fund annual expenditure - so there must be a shortfall.

I discounted advertising and other commercial income streams making up the difference - when we have to have the likes of Bolton University as our one time shirt sponsors recently, we can hardly be described as being inundated with big businesses wanting the club to advertise their brands!

So the remaining funding has to come from somewhere and it won't be the investment or high street banks.

We've sold nothing nor got a payday lender type loan, so the only other option would seem to be the owners themselves - and one of the two doesn't have any money.

So why would Anderson be putting his own money into the club if he didn't calculate he would get a return on it at some later date?

Doesn't seem to me that he will get a return until he turns the club about both on and off the pitch.

That is why I reason that he's not in this for a quick killing and that he really does intend to do a good job for the club as it is in his own interests to do so.

I've no doubt his intention is to sell the club at sometime to recover his money and make a profit and he can't do that unless the club is heading upwards and not downwards.

Also, yes there are limits on how much owners can invest but there always seems to be ways around these things somehow, so I don't see that as quite the barrier you may have.

Time will tell anyway.

Chairmanda wrote:Ooooh, fight! I disagree sluffster, and base my argument on your main premise about funding. I'd be surprised if season ticket other ticket sales were budgeted to be more than 20% of expenditure in reality. Despite ffp rules, the income v expenditure percentage is open to manipulation, and that is what all businesses do. It's a big assumption that any shortfall is made up by directors contribution, it should be lessened by commercial activity, and as the rules about loans are now different from in my time, it is unlikely any director can be putting money in hoping for a return on it. The only way of profiting is via an increase in share value. I agree that ongoing liabilities are being paid, but stand by my initial statement, I don't think the foundation is there for long term sustainability. Hope you are right!

The woman knowest what she speaketh of!   Of course, Anderson wants to make a profit, and selling part of the club to a third party would achieve that goal.  He might end up net zero and continue to have a large piece of the club for free.  But how do you increase share value as Manda suggests?  At the least, we are free of the sheriff for now!

Just posted the latest on administration in the Bolton Wanderers News section...I take no pleasure at all in feeling a bit justified in my views above. It's not over yet...