Ken Anderson - update.

lusty, I know you don't like Anderson or trust him but I think you're reading too much into the debt being secured against club assets. As I have mentioned before there is nothing unusual or untoward about that at all. It's common practice in all sorts of businesses and is no different to you using your house as collateral for your mortgage. You didn't own that house when you applied for the mortgage but the bank were happy to allow you to leverage it in return for the cash to buy it.

In simple terms your house is in no danger so long as you make the repayments on your mortgage as agreed and on time. In the same way the ground, hotel or whatever other assets BWFC has put up as security for the loans they currently have are also in no danger provided the club makes the repayments. Obviously when Ken comes to sell the club prospective new owners will inspect the books and in all likelihood the debt numbers will affect the price they eventually pay to own BWFC. I suspect the total debt figure will be deducted from the overall worth of the club and it's assets and the remaining number, be it 25 million pounds or 25 pence will be the price they pay Ken and he will then be absolved of responsibility for those debts. There is nothing illegal, unethical or immoral about such a deal.

Lest you forget, the Glazers used Manchester United's assets as collateral to buy the club and while many fans reacted in the same way you seem to be doing here because they didn't grasp the essentials of the deal itself. Just think of it as a mortgage mate because that's all it really is.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:lusty, I know you don't like Anderson or trust him but I think you're reading too much into the debt being secured against club assets. As I have mentioned before there is nothing unusual or untoward about that at all. It's common practice in all sorts of businesses and is no different to you using your house as collateral for your mortgage. You didn't own that house when you applied for the mortgage but the bank were happy to allow you to leverage it in return for the cash to buy it.

In simple terms your house is in no danger so long as you make the repayments on your mortgage as agreed and on time. In the same way the ground, hotel or whatever other assets BWFC has put up as security for the loans they currently have are also in no danger provided the club makes the repayments. Obviously when Ken comes to sell the club prospective new owners will inspect the books and in all likelihood the debt numbers will affect the price they eventually pay to own BWFC. I suspect the total debt figure will be deducted from the overall worth of the club and it's assets and the remaining number, be it 25 million pounds or 25 pence will be the price they pay Ken and he will then be absolved of responsibility for those debts. There is nothing illegal, unethical or immoral about such a deal.

Lest you forget, the Glazers used Manchester United's assets as collateral to buy the club and while many fans reacted in the same way you seem to be doing here because they didn't grasp the essentials of the deal itself. Just think of it as a mortgage mate because that's all it really is.

I do get it LPP - I have over 35 years boardroom experience and a quality MBA mate. To use your analogy -  you can have an unpaid mortgage on your house but still sell it, paying back the bank out of the proceeds.

That's not the issue.
I have no issue with securing loans against assets WHEN REQUIRED but I do object when there is a better alternative for the business i.e. allowing new investors to take a share and using the money they introduce/buy in with to run the business instead of further borrowing which is expensive.

In your analogy, the "house" was owned by several people: Anderson, Deano, the minority shareholders and indirectly, the Creditors.

When we had an option for someone to come in and buy the living room - i.e. Deano's shareholding - it should have brought in NEW MONEY and which would have steadied the ship financially whilst simultaneously taking pressure off cashflow by reducing the interest payments. But Anderson blocked it* preferring instead to remortgage - which only serves to deepen the club's debt instead of alleviating it.

The money that a new investor would have given us would have wiped out most if not all of the payments to BM which means that going forward a lot of our earnings will have to be spent on interest i.e. it's dead money - we don't get anything for it.

By shoring up his own majority shareholding in this way, Anderson effectively gave the club a bill of over a £million a year - money which could have been spent on ensuring we stay in the Championship thereby securing stronger medium term income.

It may be purely coincidence, but the tactic of not introducing your own money and running the business on cheaply-bought assets is classic asset stripping behaviour. And Anderson has form.

I would also suggest that the "prospectus" is a media exercise which Anderson will use to justify further lack of investment when nobody meets/agrees with his valuation. It should also be noted that when Anderson arrived, the assets were independently valued at £38 million.

I may be wrong about Anderson but he stinketh.


* First he attacked potential investors in the media, then refused to let them see the books and then offered the liquidator and BM a quick deal - preying on BMs concerns that nobody might come in and giving the liquidator an easy payday. Snazzy moves but at the end of the day it cost Anderson nothing and he gained full control - I would argue at the expense of the club - hence my suspicion of his motives.

wanderlust wrote: Blah, blah, Anderson's a crook, blan blah I've 35 years experience of being on a board, blah, blah and I've got an MBA (a quality one you know) blah, blah, so I know what I'm talking about, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

You also constantly and confidently told us he would never get the embargo removed - it was - and that is why we signed Karl Henry.

And you kept banging on how he's kept investors away - and Anderson's proved you're talking out of your arse again by putting the club up for sale!

Now you're even saying he's going to walk off with £25 million from the sale in his pack pocket!

You're just a complete and utter moonman mate.

lusty I don't know why you insist on wearing blinkers here but it's time you took them off. Dean Holdsworth was unable to repay the loan he took out to buy 'his' share of the club and would have wound up defaulting on it had Ken not stepped in. The result of that default would have been to see those shares in the hands of a finance company and you'd be an idiot not to see they would have simply liquidated the assets to get their money back. If you've got board experience you know as well as I do that when assets are liquidated in those circumstances you almost never get market value for them and that would really have killed the club. The way Ken Anderson sorted that mess out was in my opinion the only viable way it could have been done.

Outside investment would not have come while close on  half the club's shares were at risk of being repossessed (to use the house analogy) because who wants a house without a roof? The simple fact is you just don't trust Anderson which is fine, I can understand it but it's blinding you to the obvious. You instantly see ulterior and underhanded motives for his every action because you want to whether you have evidence of it or not. You're too smart for that really so it's a disappointment to see you consistently banging on the "Anderson is a crook" drum like this.

If Anderson sells the club and makes himself a profit in the process then more power to him. Frankly without him we'd have been in administration long ago and since we were in League One at the time with several players on Premier League wages, a falling revenue and falling attendances it's highly possible we'd simply have ceased to exist altogether.

I don't say he's some kind of messiah but nor is he the scheming villain twirling his handlebar moustache that you seem to believe he is. If anyone is the villain in this whole piece it's Dean Holdsworth who took out a loan he couldn't repay and put half this club's shares at risk as a result. It added to an already messy and difficult situation and gave people like the ST and Iles ammunition they should never have had to try and denigrate what Ken Anderson was doing. Frankly I'm amazed that you can't see the blindingly obvious here. We're NOT a big club that's going to attract billionaires to buy us, especially with FFP rules being what they are. Things ARE improving off the field (eg the embargo etc) and the club is stabilising after the worst period in its history since the dark days of the mid 80's, something I believe we should all be grateful to Ken Anderson for.

I think I've stated my concerns clearly enough and if some folk still don't get it then that's a shame but there's enough been said on the matter so I'll leave it there and hope that St. Toadface proves me wrong.

Ok.  New question. Since he took over from eddie what has he done to deserve the distrust of people?

y2j the short version is nothing. He's restructured the club's debts and used the club's assets as collateral to gain finance in the same way we gained a mortgage (ie using the house itself as collaterall.

However, in the la-la land in which lusty lives Ken has deliberately shunned outside investment from all those billionaires who were desperate to buy a failing football club with almost 200 million in debts and sitting bottom of the championship because he wants to make massive profits for himself by somehow stripping the assets and then swanning off into the sunset.

Oh, and elsewhere in lustyworld Anderson was NEVER going to get the embargo lifted since it suited him to say "we can't sign anyone because we're embargoed" as a means of not putting any money into the club.

Even further into la-la-lusty world it seems Dean Holdsworth is a misunderstood hero instead of a completely incompetent tosspot who couldn't organise a gang bang in a brothel and couldn't afford to pay for it anyway. Basically lusty and the ST are one on this issue, that should tell you all you need to know about it.

It gave me a chuckle that Peter.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:y2j the short version is nothing. He's restructured the club's debts and used the club's assets as collateral to gain finance in the same way we gained a mortgage (ie using the house itself as collaterall.

However, in the la-la land in which lusty lives Ken has deliberately shunned outside investment from all those billionaires who were desperate to buy a failing football club with almost 200 million in debts and sitting bottom of the championship because he wants to make massive profits for himself by somehow stripping the assets and then swanning off into the sunset.

Oh, and elsewhere in lustyworld Anderson was NEVER going to get the embargo lifted since it suited him to say "we can't sign anyone because we're embargoed" as a means of not putting any money into the club.

Even further into la-la-lusty world it seems Dean Holdsworth is a misunderstood hero instead of a completely incompetent tosspot who couldn't organise a gang bang in a brothel and couldn't afford to pay for it anyway. Basically lusty and the ST are one on this issue, that should tell you all you need to know about it.

Wrong player answer as they say in The Chase.
And wrong answer. I think Deano is a naive fool, but he did save the club and did introduce Anderson to BWFC.

My Dad had a bit of an idea that because of the AVC and having to give six months notice, he's doing a crafty and posting the "For sale" now so that it may be six months old by the time investors appear and he'll have covered the six months warning. Is there any expiry time on that six months notice or could it be used, for instance, next season, or does he have to keep advertising it?

y2johnny wrote:Ok.  New question. Since he took over from eddie what has he done to deserve the distrust of people?

Ignoring his previous 9 year ban from all Directorships for stripping assets in previous enterprises he was involved with so as to comply with your careful wording, I'd say nobody knows for certain as we haven't seen the latest accounts and we're probably not prepared to take up his demand for a non-refundable one-off fee of £5 million just to see them.
But it looks like he has lied about the lifting of the embargo given that we still don't have free market access without EFL approval so who knows what else he has lied about? Nobody apart from Toadface himself. It will all come out in the wash when he is eventually forced to show his hand.

Bollotom2014 wrote:My Dad had a bit of an idea that because of the AVC and having to give six months notice, he's doing a crafty and posting the "For sale" now so that it may be six months old by the time investors appear and he'll have covered the six months warning. Is there any expiry time on that six months notice or could it be used, for instance, next season, or does he have to keep advertising it?

The £25 million "for sale" notice is for Anderson's shares as opposed to the ACV assets and is a vehicle to put his own valuation of them out in the public domain.
If he wanted to sell the ACV the process is:

1. Owner informs Council in writing of their intention to sell
   
2. Interim 5 week moratorium whilst Council publicises sale and to allow any CIG (e.g. ST or Council themselves) to declare themselves as a bidder
   
3. After 5 weeks, the full 6 month moratorium commences during which bidders must submit their bids in a closed tender process
   
4. At end of moratorium, owner decides whether or not to accept any bids.
   
5. If he doesn't owner can then sell on open market.
   

lusty, let's just get one thing straight. Dean did NOT save the club, in fact he very nearly killed it with his idiocy. Taking out a loan that you cannot afford to repay is questionable at the best of times but to do it in the expectation that you'll be able to make a quick buck from an already severely ailing business was idiocy. Dean secured his loan with the shares he bought, common practice and one I have no beef with by itself but when the 'investment' he so confidently expected didn't materialise he was left with a bill he couldn't pay and the creditors would have taken his shares. Since they clearly wouldn't want to keep them given the state of the businesses finances at the time they would have sold them to the highest bidder assuming they could find one. In the event Ken did the only viable thing, he restructured the club's debts and took the shares himself.

You keep banging on about his past record and I do share your concerns about that but don't you think it's time to judge him by what he is doing right now rather than by what you think he might do later. From where I sit he's doing a lot of good things for us and his communication with us has also been top notch and crystal clear. So far as I can tell he's made no secret of where he stands on anything and (as of yesterday's post by him) there are no firm offers on the table nor has he given anyone instructions to look for them.

I believe Ken Anderson has the best interests of BWFC at heart, not out of some sense of altruism but because the only way he can hope to get his money back much less make a profit is to turn the club around and stabilise the finances. We are still a long way from being an attractive investment proposition as things stand but we are heading in the right direction. Maybe you should consider giving some credit where it's due. Ken Anderson is the man who's saved the club thus far no matter what the ST, Iles and others might say. If he continues doing what he has done so far then I believe in time we'll all have reason to be tremendously grateful to him whether he personally profits or not.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:lusty, let's just get one thing straight. Dean did NOT save the club, in fact he very nearly killed it with his idiocy. Taking out a loan that you cannot afford to repay is questionable at the best of times but to do it in the expectation that you'll be able to make a quick buck from an already severely ailing business was idiocy. Dean secured his loan with the shares he bought, common practice and one I have no beef with by itself but when the 'investment' he so confidently expected didn't materialise he was left with a bill he couldn't pay and the creditors would have taken his shares. Since they clearly wouldn't want to keep them given the state of the businesses finances at the time they would have sold them to the highest bidder assuming they could find one. In the event Ken did the only viable thing, he restructured the club's debts and took the shares himself.

You keep banging on about his past record and I do share your concerns about that but don't you think it's time to judge him by what he is doing right now rather than by what you think he might do later. From where I sit he's doing a lot of good things for us and his communication with us has also been top notch and crystal clear. So far as I can tell he's made no secret of where he stands on anything and (as of yesterday's post by him) there are no firm offers on the table nor has he given anyone instructions to look for them.

I believe Ken Anderson has the best interests of BWFC at heart, not out of some sense of altruism but because the only way he can hope to get his money back much less make a profit is to turn the club around and stabilise the finances. We are still a long way from being an attractive investment proposition as things stand but we are heading in the right direction. Maybe you should consider giving some credit where it's due. Ken Anderson is the man who's saved the club thus far no matter what the ST, Iles and others might say. If he continues doing what he has done so far then I believe in time we'll all have reason to be tremendously grateful to him whether he personally profits or not.

So you trust him and I don't - what's your problem with that?

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:lusty, let's just get one thing straight. Dean did NOT save the club, in fact he very nearly killed it with his idiocy. Taking out a loan that you cannot afford to repay is questionable at the best of times but to do it in the expectation that you'll be able to make a quick buck from an already severely ailing business was idiocy. Dean secured his loan with the shares he bought, common practice and one I have no beef with by itself but when the 'investment' he so confidently expected didn't materialise he was left with a bill he couldn't pay and the creditors would have taken his shares. Since they clearly wouldn't want to keep them given the state of the businesses finances at the time they would have sold them to the highest bidder assuming they could find one. In the event Ken did the only viable thing, he restructured the club's debts and took the shares himself.

You keep banging on about his past record and I do share your concerns about that but don't you think it's time to judge him by what he is doing right now rather than by what you think he might do later. From where I sit he's doing a lot of good things for us and his communication with us has also been top notch and crystal clear. So far as I can tell he's made no secret of where he stands on anything and (as of yesterday's post by him) there are no firm offers on the table nor has he given anyone instructions to look for them.

I believe Ken Anderson has the best interests of BWFC at heart, not out of some sense of altruism but because the only way he can hope to get his money back much less make a profit is to turn the club around and stabilise the finances. We are still a long way from being an attractive investment proposition as things stand but we are heading in the right direction. Maybe you should consider giving some credit where it's due. Ken Anderson is the man who's saved the club thus far no matter what the ST, Iles and others might say. If he continues doing what he has done so far then I believe in time we'll all have reason to be tremendously grateful to him whether he personally profits or not.

So you trust him and I don't - what's your problem with that?

My problem with both of you is you can't score goals. Now let's get back to business and get a win and find a goalscorer. What will happen will happen... and none of us know the true motives or the machinations behind-the-scenes!!! I want to win three on the trot now... find me that goalscorer!

observer wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:lusty, let's just get one thing straight. Dean did NOT save the club, in fact he very nearly killed it with his idiocy. Taking out a loan that you cannot afford to repay is questionable at the best of times but to do it in the expectation that you'll be able to make a quick buck from an already severely ailing business was idiocy. Dean secured his loan with the shares he bought, common practice and one I have no beef with by itself but when the 'investment' he so confidently expected didn't materialise he was left with a bill he couldn't pay and the creditors would have taken his shares. Since they clearly wouldn't want to keep them given the state of the businesses finances at the time they would have sold them to the highest bidder assuming they could find one. In the event Ken did the only viable thing, he restructured the club's debts and took the shares himself.

You keep banging on about his past record and I do share your concerns about that but don't you think it's time to judge him by what he is doing right now rather than by what you think he might do later. From where I sit he's doing a lot of good things for us and his communication with us has also been top notch and crystal clear. So far as I can tell he's made no secret of where he stands on anything and (as of yesterday's post by him) there are no firm offers on the table nor has he given anyone instructions to look for them.

I believe Ken Anderson has the best interests of BWFC at heart, not out of some sense of altruism but because the only way he can hope to get his money back much less make a profit is to turn the club around and stabilise the finances. We are still a long way from being an attractive investment proposition as things stand but we are heading in the right direction. Maybe you should consider giving some credit where it's due. Ken Anderson is the man who's saved the club thus far no matter what the ST, Iles and others might say. If he continues doing what he has done so far then I believe in time we'll all have reason to be tremendously grateful to him whether he personally profits or not.

So you trust him and I don't - what's your problem with that?

My problem with both of you is you can't score goals.  

Bullshit. I got 4 in six a side last night which ain't bad for a defensive mid although TBF one was a bit lucky as my volley came off the bar and went in off the back of the goalie.

I could be persuaded to come out of retirement...

wanderlust wrote:

y2johnny wrote:Ok.  New question. Since he took over from eddie what has he done to deserve the distrust of people?

Ignoring his previous 9 year ban from all Directorships for stripping assets in previous enterprises he was involved with so as to comply with your careful wording

Cant just stick to the question.  Everyone has a past.  Worse than a politician.  Not relevant so therefore ignored.

, I'd say nobody knows for certain as we haven't seen the latest accounts and we're probably not prepared to take up his demand for a non-refundable one-off fee of £5 million just to see them.

It was 500k not 5 million.  And the rest is just conjecture.  So again, nothing relevant

But it looks like he has lied about the lifting of the embargo given that we still don't have free market access without EFL approval so who knows what else he has lied about?

So henry is just a figment of everyones imagination? So again, nothing relevant

Nobody apart from Toadface himself. It will all come out in the wash when he is eventually forced to show his hand.

So he has a face like a toad and that is what you are basing your hatred of him on!

Has there been official confirmation that the embargo has been lifted?

wanderlust wrote:

observer wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:lusty, let's just get one thing straight. Dean did NOT save the club, in fact he very nearly killed it with his idiocy. Taking out a loan that you cannot afford to repay is questionable at the best of times but to do it in the expectation that you'll be able to make a quick buck from an already severely ailing business was idiocy. Dean secured his loan with the shares he bought, common practice and one I have no beef with by itself but when the 'investment' he so confidently expected didn't materialise he was left with a bill he couldn't pay and the creditors would have taken his shares. Since they clearly wouldn't want to keep them given the state of the businesses finances at the time they would have sold them to the highest bidder assuming they could find one. In the event Ken did the only viable thing, he restructured the club's debts and took the shares himself.

You keep banging on about his past record and I do share your concerns about that but don't you think it's time to judge him by what he is doing right now rather than by what you think he might do later. From where I sit he's doing a lot of good things for us and his communication with us has also been top notch and crystal clear. So far as I can tell he's made no secret of where he stands on anything and (as of yesterday's post by him) there are no firm offers on the table nor has he given anyone instructions to look for them.

I believe Ken Anderson has the best interests of BWFC at heart, not out of some sense of altruism but because the only way he can hope to get his money back much less make a profit is to turn the club around and stabilise the finances. We are still a long way from being an attractive investment proposition as things stand but we are heading in the right direction. Maybe you should consider giving some credit where it's due. Ken Anderson is the man who's saved the club thus far no matter what the ST, Iles and others might say. If he continues doing what he has done so far then I believe in time we'll all have reason to be tremendously grateful to him whether he personally profits or not.

So you trust him and I don't - what's your problem with that?

My problem with both of you is you can't score goals.  

Bullshit. I got 4 in six a side last night which ain't bad for a defensive mid although TBF one was a bit lucky as my volley came off the bar and went in off the back of the goalie.

I could be persuaded to come out of retirement...

Can we get you on a free for a meat pie per game? Obviously you have more talent than our current "goalscorers!"

Natasha Whittam wrote:Has there been official confirmation that the embargo has been lifted?

Even if its not (we did sign henry but that could of been due to injuries, plus the three young academy lads got the call up) how is it kens fault.  Again thats a legacy issue from before he took over.

Not aimed at you btw nat