Ken Anderson - update.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

karlypants wrote:Well said Johnny!

Totally agree, well said Johnny.

As you can see above we also have our own idiots that come rushing on here to gloat and call Anderson a "cunt".

As long as they are right they really don't give a fuck about the club.

True fans - yeah sure they are.

I am not one of those who have used the C word to describe Anderson, however I would point out that there are plenty of Anderson's critics who are genuine fans of the club and believe it is in the club's interest to get rid.
It's presumptive to assume they have not got the club's best interests at heart and it's a cheap shot to suggest that because they would prefer a different approach than you, they are not supporters.

Growler wrote:I've learned not to believe anything Ken says , he offered to pay the full amount plus interest but they said no? Oh aye
Lets see if Eddie or someone sorts a deal out before the disaster of administration.
Not being able to sign anyone for 2 years would completely screw us for 3 seasons

y2johnny wrote:The point and key factor in this that everyone is missing is the fact blu marble are already looking for a buyer (the american billionaire) which surely cant be legal/right.

Marc Isles wrote:One solace I have is that I understand BluMarble are still discussing possible arrangements. They are not a closed shop.

Marc Isles wrote:From what I understand there have been a few buyers who would only consider an admin purchase. I think there will be options.

Dunkels King wrote:

Growler wrote:I've learned not to believe anything Ken says , he offered to pay the full amount plus interest but they said no? Oh aye
Lets see if Eddie or someone sorts a deal out before the disaster of administration.
Not being able to sign anyone for 2 years would completely screw us for 3 seasons

He wouldn't say that if it could be proved in Court by Blu Marble that he didn't offer that money. Plus, the Court would surely not put the Club in to Administration if it was proved that Ken had the funds to pay Blu Marble in full in the first place, or am i missing something here ?

Sluffy wrote:I really don't understand what is going on here?

Note 26 (page 47) of the clubs latest accounts 2016/7, clearly states that a Deed of Settlement had been agreed with BluMarble to pay them £4 million plus £300k interest by the 1st September.

Anderson states in his statement tonight (well yesterday now) that he offered to pay it but his offer was rejected?

And he said only last week that he foresaw no issue in making that payment on the due date. As he didn't make the payment on the due date there are only two possible conclusions - either he lied or he did agree to pay but at some point in the future (having carefully avoided saying "when" in yesterday's statement) And you can only piss off your creditors so many times before they have had enough.

Maybe that implies that Andersons offer was to make staged payments rather to pay it off in one lump sum perhaps - and that was the 'offer' and was why it was rejected?

I would imagine that they have reached the end of their tether with him.

Moving on though, it does seem strange that the club will be blighted by not only a 12 point deduction but also a two year embargo - clearly that won't be attractive to any future prospective purchaser of the club - it's bound to push the value of the club down significantly?

A club in administration - without Anderson - is surely a far more attractive buying proposition though and i can entirely understand that no investor would want to put their money under Anderson's control -  they'd want their own FD in charge.

Is the Doidge loan/transfer affected? Will the other loanees have to return to their home clubs?

Surely that depends on cashflow and payment priorities? I would assume there would be recall clauses if their loanee wages weren't paid so if we go into administration it would be dependent on the plans of whoever takes control of the assets. Perhaps that's why BM are reported to be making contingency plans?

Also I thought Davies had left a debt on the books in order to prevent things like asset stripping and presumably Administration taking part?

I don't understand your reasoning. Being owed money by the club doesn't give the creditors any control over either of those. Presumably they did it because the club wouldn't have survived if they's been paid i.e. it was in the club's interest?

 I would have thought the total amount owed to Davies, Warburton and James exceeds the amount owed to BluMarble so I would have thought they would have had more say in preventing Administration and the placing their own investments out of the hands of Anderson control and in those of an Administrator?

They can only give assurances regarding their attitude towards reclaiming the money they are owed, not the club's overall finances and so have limited influence on the Administration process.

I also can't come to grips with the legitimacy of the loan against the club in the first place, it seems from what Anderson has said BluMarble has won a case against their own lawyers in respect of the Holdsworth deal and surely that means something fundamental about the deal was wrong, even illegal?

That's because it was another entirely legal deal that Anderson made in order to grab control of the club. The only illegality is Anderson not honouring the terms of the deal he entered into.

My best guess is that BluMarble wants to take control from Anderson, run it under Administration (which they will pay for - and not the club!) for at least three months, which coincidently is about as fast as it takes someone buying the club do it's due diligence - and then sell it on, presumably to this American they have lined up.

Hopefully but by no means certain.

I guess they figure they will make more money doing it that way (or at least get their money back more quickly)?  Maybe even retain a stake in the club!

It is you that has consistently suggested that making money out of BWFC is BM's sole agenda. Even if that is the case, the best way to ensure you get paid is to ensure the business runs smoothly and is profitable so ousting Anderson makes total sense.

Not sure a two year transfer embargo is going to be helpful to anyone though.

Thanks Ken. And that may not be the worst of it as once Anderson is gone (if he goes) only then will we find out the truth of what he's been doing.

Seems like hard times and relegation ahead for us then - but I'm sure the anti-Andersons will be delighted for us to suffer just to get Ken out of the club.

y2johnny wrote:ANTI ANDERSON MEANS PRO BWFC....................You don't half come out with some bollocks.  Everyone else talks about things like the conjecture they are where as you talk about them like they are stone cold facts.  i don't if you do this deliberately or not nothing you have said is a fact!  not one thing.

wanderlust wrote:

y2johnny wrote:ANTI ANDERSON MEANS PRO BWFC....................You don't half come out with some bollocks.  Everyone else talks about things like the conjecture they are where as you talk about them like they are stone cold facts.  i don't if you do this deliberately or not nothing you have said is a fact!  not one thing.

Do you have to deliberately misquote me in order to make your point? 

I said "Anti-Anderson means pro-BWFC in my mind and many others" and having that  opinion is a fact, regardless of how much you try to wriggle out of it. You're just pissed off because the truth about "King Ken" is starting to emerge. He may well survive this one but there will always be a threat to our club whilst he controls it as I have said all along.

y2johnny wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

y2johnny wrote:ANTI ANDERSON MEANS PRO BWFC....................You don't half come out with some bollocks.  Everyone else talks about things like the conjecture they are where as you talk about them like they are stone cold facts.  i don't if you do this deliberately or not nothing you have said is a fact!  not one thing.

Do you have to deliberately misquote me in order to make your point? 

I said "Anti-Anderson means pro-BWFC in my mind and many others" and having that  opinion is a fact, regardless of how much you try to wriggle out of it. You're just pissed off because the truth about "King Ken" is starting to emerge. He may well survive this one but there will always be a threat to our club whilst he controls it as I have said all along.

haha, i'm not just talking about this instance.  but thats it, try and use even more conjecture to make you sound like your right when quite clearly you know as much as the rest of us..................fuck all!

Norpig wrote:I'll bet it's dear old Uncle Eddie