Ken Anderson - update.

.

It’s getting to be like Groundhog Day at BWFC with questions about the running of the club spilling over into uncertainty about cash flow and failure to secure the promised investment and the likes of Sluffy continuing to spout the conspiracy theory that the media, potential investors, creditors, Supporters Trust and everyone on Twitter and Facebook and their dog  all have it in for poor honest Ken..
I outlined what I think are the issues with his tenure and apparent intentions months if not years ago and in the absence of information with which to question Anderson’s controlled messaging - and in the face of increasingly hysterical defence of his behaviour I agreed to let it drop until the truth emerges which it eventually will.
I don’t think anything has happened to change that view.

Sluffy wrote:

MartinBWFC wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
A number of things there Martin, not least that simply going into Administration doesn't necessarily mean that Anderson will actually lose ownership of the club (if that is what your hope was?).

The main problem that faces most businesses is cash flow and it is more than likely all major debtors (including HMRC) will be catered for even if that means delays in wage payments occasionally.

Bolton only had one home game this month, until Tuesday's game and this more than anything probably had a bearing on why the staff was informed the money might not be there for their wages on time - it wouldn't surprise me if the club (Anderson) had tried to get the DD's for today rather than Monday and got knocked back at the last moment.

We have four home games next month starting tomorrow, so I doubt that the club will be having any issues with creditors or payment of the wages for the rest of this year no matter how many people would wish it on us just so they can bitch about the Anderson's.

For what it is worth I did note one very senior ST Board member liking tweets alluding that Anderson cared fuck all about the club just as long as he was getting plenty money from it for his own personal benefit!

All well and good Sluffy, but why is it just BWFC that continues on this path, clubs such as Bury, Rochdale and the likes don't seem to have these problems on much lower gates, there's problems galore behind the scenes here and it's all beginning to stench the place out.

Ever thought that maybe they do - but they don't have people like Iles and the ST making huge issues about it and putting it into the public domain all the time?

At the end of the day, despite what the likes of Iles is making out - it looks like a pay day for the players (only) may be missed by a couple of days.  Ok it shouldn't be and it does cause some people a nuisance but its happened to me before more than once - and I was working at the time in the public sector and knew that my wages were guaranteed.

The players wages are also guaranteed no matter what - so at the end of the day it might annoy them a bit but they KNOW they will get paid and any costs they incur during the delay will be covered too - and that's why despite everything that nutjobs at the ST and twitter say, players will still continue signing for the club.

If Iles had not tweeted and published an article based on information he clearly had not seen or heard the clubs side first - would we have known about the possible delay in the payment of wages - after all the staff got paid on time anyway as in turned out.

It's been clear to me for a long while that Iles has got his own personal agenda and that most other clubs journalists from their local papers certainly wouldn't be rushing out to wash their dirty laundry in public like Iles constantly does.

Can't say that I follow other clubs local reporting but there is most definitely friction between Iles and Anderson. But there was also clear friction between Gordon Shorrock and Phil Gartside that I believe coloured the BN reporting over several years and was part of the climate that Iles walked into when first appointed. But that's another story.

Its always seemed fairly clear to me that, without new money before the end of 2018, the club was going to run into severe cash flow problems and that  getting the new money was not going to be easy, no matter how hard Anderson tried. Eddie Davies tried for at least fifteen months (and probably a lot longer) to try to get someone to take over a better proposition but with no success.

Delaying the wages payment until 6 December will delay the tax on it for another month but its 'spinning plates' and won't solve the problem. Ken Anderson doesn't give up easily but at some stage he's bound to want to move on and do something else with the rest of his life. At the moment it must seem like all his luck is running out.

TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.

wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.

ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.

ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.

Re para 2 
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.

ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.

Re para 2 
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.

You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.

wanderlust wrote:It’s getting to be like Groundhog Day at BWFC with questions about the running of the club spilling over into uncertainty about cash flow and failure to secure the promised investment and the likes of Sluffy continuing to spout the conspiracy theory that the media, potential investors, creditors, Supporters Trust and everyone on Twitter and Facebook and their dog  all have it in for poor honest Ken..
I outlined what I think are the issues with his tenure and apparent intentions months if not years ago and in the absence of information with which to question Anderson’s controlled messaging - and in the face of increasingly hysterical defence of his behaviour I agreed to let it drop until the truth emerges which it eventually will.
I don’t think anything has happened to change that view.

Eh, what the fuck are you on about you complete nutjob?

I've said I believe the local club reporter as an agenda against Anderson NOT the world's media!  I've never mentioned any potential investors having issues with KA because I've no idea of who any of them have been!  The only creditor I'm aware of with an outstanding issue with Ken is Heathcote - and clearly KA has an issue with him too - he's stated as much!

As for the ST, this is what one of the founder members and current Board member posted on twitter about KA as recently as Thursday -

"If he said Good Morning to me, I'd have to check outside to see if there was day light...",

...so yes I really DO think they are hardcore anti-Andersons in both word and intent!

I don't do Facebook so clearly I've never said anything about whatever is posted up on there and as for Twitter it is self evident that there is certainly a lynch mob on there after Anderson's head!

It's you who fail to comprehend reality just to continue to push your crazy, preconceived anti-Anderson agenda.  Christ you've had him down as an asset stripper and have been banging on about him deliberately going to bankrupt the club from day one - he must be the worst asset stripper in the world then because almost three years later he's still not managed to achieve that and spurned every opportunity to go into Administration when it actually seemed easier for him to do so!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.

ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.

Re para 2 
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.

You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.

I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.

ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.

Re para 2 
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.

You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.

I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.

Ah the old 'big snouts need big troughs' hypothesis. Its true enough when applied to football finance but its not exactly profound, is it?

wanderlust wrote:I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.

That's your problem right there!

You've had a preconceived view of Anderson right from the very start and blindly carry that on no matter what and 'bend' the facts to fit your agenda rather than accept them for what really is happening.

TWO people took on the club from Davies with a commitment to put £7.5 million investment into it - £5 million up front from Holdsworth and £2.5 million (if further money was required) from Anderson.  

That simply never happened because Holdsworth DIDN'T 'invest' into the club - he simply took a loan out against current assets!

Can any reasonable person expect Anderson to chuck in £2.5 million of his OWN money after that?  If you were in his shoes wouldn't you be saying where's YOUR £5 million Dean because you aren't seeing a penny of my money until YOU uphold your side of the bargain.  Just take it out as another payday loan Dean against the clubs assets just like you did - oh but wait you can't pay the monthly instalments on the one you've already taken out can you?  So if you aren't going to be putting anything in and I'm certainly not until you do - then the club is in an even worse mess than if we hadn't taken it on at all!

So you end up with a club having a need of £5 to 7.5 million from two owners/investors and end up with NO investment from one of them and the other eventually having to pay out (from the club and/or his own pocket) at least £1 million to get shut of the 'chancer' who had made things worse for a club that was already a financial basket case to begin with!!!

If Anderson had thought from the very beginning he had to invest a potential £7.5 million of his own money into the club in the first place he may very well have not got involved because he may very well hadn't that sort of money to risk, or simply hadn't got that money at all?

Rightly or wrongly it seems to me that through no obvious fault of his own he's ended up with a club he never intended to be sole owner of which he never had the funds and/or intent to invest more that £2.5 million in, which I interpret from the wording of the original agreement ('if required') meant to fund cash flow as and when needed - and not a one off cash injection.

So he's made the best for himself from the position he's found himself in, he's paid off Holdsworth, kept the club afloat through player sales, covered cash flow (when he's known he is sure to get his money back), got the club close to financially being breakeven - he will achieve that from next season on when we finally get shut of Amos's £16k per week salary - and still has an asset that he can sell on (if only he can find a genuine buyer for a club that has traditionally a limited support based in a catchment area of super clubs like United, City and possibly even Liverpool).

If he was ever going to do a runner he would have done it long before now don't you think - what's £50k per month (which the anti-Anderson's believe he's taking) to a man who is a tax exile in Switzerland, owns a property in Monaco and owns a ocean going yacht?

He's here to turn a profit on the club not to run it into the ground!  He's after millions (about £5 million) from a sale if he can not a few ten of thousand from the petty cash each month.

But then again the old saying still holds true that there are non so blind that those that will not see - and those are the one's so prejudist against Anderson from day one that they've chosen not to see what the true picture is.

This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Anderson only stepped in at the last minute - at the court hearing - when Holdsworth's 'money' partner up to the time 'pulled out'.

The agreement made at the court was that of Holdsworth putting in £5 million and Anderson a further £2.5 (IF required).

I can only assume Holdsworth and his former partner had shown proof of the money to the EFL (the BluMarble loan was clearly granted in advance of the court hearing - in fact there were only 16 days left of the loan period to settle the loan when Holdsworth and Anderson took over control of the club) and that 'proof' was based on the original moneyman having shown documentation to BluMarble that he had the assets to cover the £5 million.

I guess Anderson also showed proof he had £2.5 million tucked away but easily gettable to uphold his part of the deal - so on the outside looking in all the boxes seemed to have be ticked and approved.

The fly in the ointment so to speak was Holdsworth moving to secure the loan on BWFC assets - and not whatever the original security was going to be - on the day the deal went through - without the knowledge of such by KA.

As long as BM had the security the money was released - Holdsworth put it into the club (less a million set up fee?) and the EFL already had Holdsworth and KA as having passed their criteria - so everything went through.

Clearly when Anderson realised that Holdsworth hadn't actually brought any investment to the club - then it all started to go pear shaped - but with now Holdsworth owning half of the club without putting a penny into it (pocketing a million from the set up fees - allegedly?) and thinking/hoping that his new partner would still put in his £2.5 million to keep the club going and pay the monthly BM repayments - which of course was never going to happen.

Holdsworth was stuck in that he had a £5 million BM loan against him (SSBWFC) so he was never going to walk away from the club as he still was a half owner and he knew his 'personal' debt was covered by the club as long as he was still a partner there and I guess Anderson couldn't walk either without breaking his agreement to put £2.5 million into the club if needed - which of course it would be because Holdsworth had no money to pay his own SSBWFC company in order to pay the BM loan back.

My question would be how much did Eddie know about Holdsworth intent to secure the BM loan on BWFC assets because the club secretary Marland witnessed the documents levying the charge on assets on the day of the take over?

observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

wanderlust wrote:

observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.

That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.

That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

Eh???

The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.

But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?

Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.

That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

Eh???

The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.

But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?

Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?

I have to say, Sluffy, that when the laughably named Sports Shield consortium (two recently formed companies with a combined share capital of £2) took over BWFC I feared the worst. Like everyone else, I had seen photos of individuals with checkered histories showing up in the directors box, seemingly as guests of Dean Holdsworth. Ken Anderson also had history which some were more than keen to publicise.

My enquiries into Holdsworth indicated nothing to suggest that he had any money to spare or any experience that would justify him being appointed CEO of the Burnden Leisure group on a starting salary of £250K.

The first of three Sports Shield companies formed by Dean Holdsworth was Sports Shield Ltd incorporated in January 2015. On 5 April 2016 notice was given of the intention to strike the company off for failure to file accounts. The company then gave notice to extend its first accounting date to 31 March 2016 and filed these accounts on 29 December 2016. i.e. just two days before the extended filing deadline. The company accounts showed that it had £118,686 cash at the bank but where had this money come from? 

Holdsworth had been employed by a company called Xpro Management Services Ltd which went into liquidation in October 2015 with scarcely any assets and an estimated deficiency of £87K. What little the liquidator managed to collect all went in fees with nothing for the creditors.

I'm not implying that there was any wrongdoing in any of this but it does not suggest the kind of background or experience needed to run a group of companies with 260 employees and an annual turnover of £30million.

The Xpro set up is interesting in another respect in that its purpose seemed to have been to help retired footballers who had fallen on hard times. One might reasonably have thought that the PFA, with all its riches, was the body that ought to be doing that.

Anyway despite the management services company going belly up, Xpro remains a registered charity. Successful? Not according to Charity Commission records. They show that Xpro Life after Sport has never, in its history, raised as much as £10,000 in any financial year.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.

That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

Eh???

The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.

But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?

Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?

I have to say, Sluffy, that when the laughably named Sports Shield consortium (two recently formed companies with a combined share capital of £2) took over BWFC I feared the worst. Like everyone else, I had seen photos of individuals with checkered histories showing up in the directors box, seemingly as guests of Dean Holdsworth. Ken Anderson also had history which some were more than keen to publicise.

My enquiries into Holdsworth indicated nothing to suggest that he had any money to spare or any experience that would justify him being appointed CEO of the Burnden Leisure group on a starting salary of £250K.

The first of three Sports Shield companies formed by Dean Holdsworth was Sports Shield Ltd incorporated in January 2015. On 5 April 2016 notice was given of the intention to strike the company off for failure to file accounts. The company then gave notice to extend its first accounting date to 31 March 2016 and filed these accounts on 29 December 2016. i.e. just two days before the extended filing deadline. The company accounts showed that it had £118,686 cash at the bank but where had this money come from? 

Holdsworth had been employed by a company called Xpro Management Services Ltd which went into liquidation in October 2015 with scarcely any assets and an estimated deficiency of £87K. What little the liquidator managed to collect all went in fees with nothing for the creditors.

I'm not implying that there was any wrongdoing in any of this but it does not suggest the kind of background or experience needed to run a group of companies with 260 employees and an annual turnover of £30million.

The Xpro set up is interesting in another respect in that its purpose seemed to have been to help retired footballers who had fallen on hard times. One might reasonably have thought that the PFA, with all its riches, was the body that ought to be doing that.

Anyway despite the management services company going belly up, Xpro remains a registered charity. Successful? Not according to Charity Commission records. They show that Xpro Life after Sport has never, in its history, raised as much as £10,000 in any financial year.

See post 389

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

observer wrote:This begs the question of how the FA allowed DeanO to buy the club without the proverbial pot.  When the money man dropped out at the last minute, how did they allow this deal to go through?  Seems as if they did not do the proper vetting or wanted the club a stay of execution from administration.

Simple.
Unlike Anderson, Deano hadn’t previously been banned from being a Director for a period of 9 years for diverting company funds into his personal account.

Then in that case why did Anderson pass the vetting too you dipstick!

Put your preconceived bitter prejudice away and try and look at things with an impartial mind for a change.

That’s the very question I asked isn’t it? You’re going in circles again.

Eh???

The question asked by Obs (not you???) was how did HOLDSWORTH pass the fit and proper test, your reply was basically because he wasn't Anderson.

But seeing Anderson also passed the test - and he of course IS Anderson - then obviously your answer is wrong and clearly made absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Haven't a clue what you are going on about 'going in circles' either?

Do you even know what you are typing half the time, anymore?

I have to say, Sluffy, that when the laughably named Sports Shield consortium (two recently formed companies with a combined share capital of £2) took over BWFC I feared the worst. Like everyone else, I had seen photos of individuals with checkered histories showing up in the directors box, seemingly as guests of Dean Holdsworth. Ken Anderson also had history which some were more than keen to publicise.

My enquiries into Holdsworth indicated nothing to suggest that he had any money to spare or any experience that would justify him being appointed CEO of the Burnden Leisure group on a starting salary of £250K.

The first of three Sports Shield companies formed by Dean Holdsworth was Sports Shield Ltd incorporated in January 2015. On 5 April 2016 notice was given of the intention to strike the company off for failure to file accounts. The company then gave notice to extend its first accounting date to 31 March 2016 and filed these accounts on 29 December 2016. i.e. just two days before the extended filing deadline. The company accounts showed that it had £118,686 cash at the bank but where had this money come from? 

Holdsworth had been employed by a company called Xpro Management Services Ltd which went into liquidation in October 2015 with scarcely any assets and an estimated deficiency of £87K. What little the liquidator managed to collect all went in fees with nothing for the creditors.

I'm not implying that there was any wrongdoing in any of this but it does not suggest the kind of background or experience needed to run a group of companies with 260 employees and an annual turnover of £30million.

The Xpro set up is interesting in another respect in that its purpose seemed to have been to help retired footballers who had fallen on hard times. One might reasonably have thought that the PFA, with all its riches, was the body that ought to be doing that.

Anyway despite the management services company going belly up, Xpro remains a registered charity. Successful? Not according to Charity Commission records. They show that Xpro Life after Sport has never, in its history, raised as much as £10,000 in any financial year.

See post 389

I expect the EFL has approved more than a few owners and directors with histories but it has been Ken Anderson's determination and skill that has been largely responsible for the club getting through the last two seasons without going bust. Whether he will succeed in finding the new money the club needs remains to be seen. If he doesn't, I doubt it will be for want of effort on his part.

Incidentally HMRC has open 'inquiries' into 171 football players, 44 clubs and 33 agents. They haven't been named but I know of nothing to suggest that BWFC is one of the clubs.