Ken Anderson - update.

Climb out sluffy.

Kane57 wrote:Ken has offered to pay them 50% and the rest at some point on the future when things improve.

A bit late of me but thank you for letting us know the inside story as soon as you had access to it last night.

Sluffy wrote:

Kane57 wrote:Ken has offered to pay them 50% and the rest at some point on the future when things improve.

A bit late of me but thank you for letting us know the inside story as soon as you had access to it last night.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Climb out sluffy.

I was brought up to have good manners.

Sluffy wrote:I was brought up to have good manners.

I don't remember being thanked when my mole broke the story that Parky had been sacked.

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

If that was the case - and clearly it wasn't - then the charge would have been 'satisfied' when he repaid himself.  The charge is still 'live' and thus still owing to Anderson - ie he has loaned the club money from himself and that money is still owing.

If it was ED's money the charge would be showing to him (there is as I stated a new charge created at the time of Anderson's charge, to Moonshift/Eddie), so its not Eddie's money at all - as the charge is for Ken Anderson.

You clearly pretend you know a lot - but clearly you don't - you just have you agenda and prejudice and bend the facts to fit your story.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

If that was the case - and clearly it wasn't - then the charge would have been 'satisfied' when he repaid himself.  The charge is still 'live' and thus still owing to Anderson - ie he has loaned the club money from himself and that money is still owing.

If it was ED's money the charge would be showing to him (there is as I stated a new charge created at the time of Anderson's charge, to Moonshift/Eddie), so its not Eddie's money at all - as the charge is for Ken Anderson.

You clearly pretend you know a lot - but clearly you don't - you just have you agenda and prejudice and bend the facts to fit your story.

I think ED (or Moonshift/Fildraw) lent the money to repay Blumarble to Ken Anderson personally. When the BM loan was repaid out of these funds, KA took a similar charge against Burnden Leisure to the one BM had. So Burnden Leisure instead of owing BM £4m, now owes £4m to KA which KA in turn owes to ED's estate. I expect its possible that the terms of the £10m Fildraw loan may have been changed as part of the arrangement.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

If that was the case - and clearly it wasn't - then the charge would have been 'satisfied' when he repaid himself.  The charge is still 'live' and thus still owing to Anderson - ie he has loaned the club money from himself and that money is still owing.

If it was ED's money the charge would be showing to him (there is as I stated a new charge created at the time of Anderson's charge, to Moonshift/Eddie), so its not Eddie's money at all - as the charge is for Ken Anderson.

You clearly pretend you know a lot - but clearly you don't - you just have you agenda and prejudice and bend the facts to fit your story.

I think ED (or Moonshift/Fildraw) lent the money to repay Blumarble to Ken Anderson personally. When the BM loan was repaid out of these funds, KA took a similar charge against Burnden Leisure to the one BM had. So Burnden Leisure instead of owing BM £4m, now owes £4m to KA which KA in turn owes to ED's estate. I expect its possible that the terms of the £10m Fildraw loan may have been changed as part of the arrangement.

Yes I'm sure all that is correct.

However it is still KA's money that he's put into the club - just the same as if KA had borrowed the money from say the bank to pay off BM.

If for whatever reason the club can't pay KA back in time for the loan to be settled, he will still owe Eddie Davies / Moonshift the money - so he will have to sell off his personal assets to settle the debt - which in the case will be handing over the ownership of the club - which he values at around £5 million plus apparently.

So on paper at least he stands to lose an asset he owns - set against the ability of the club to repay his loan back to him in order to settle ED's loan to him - or his ability to raise enough funds elsewhere to satisfy the loan from Eddie.

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:


Particularly the bit about how a person can have a charge against assets if he's not loan anything against it in the first place?

Thank you.

For example, the bit where I said Anderson provided bridge funding for salaries at which point he was a creditor, and then repaid himself ahead of all other creditors at which point he was no longer a creditor. Ergo net investment = ZERO

Or as already mentioned it could be the ED money.

If that was the case - and clearly it wasn't - then the charge would have been 'satisfied' when he repaid himself.  The charge is still 'live' and thus still owing to Anderson - ie he has loaned the club money from himself and that money is still owing.

If it was ED's money the charge would be showing to him (there is as I stated a new charge created at the time of Anderson's charge, to Moonshift/Eddie), so its not Eddie's money at all - as the charge is for Ken Anderson.

You clearly pretend you know a lot - but clearly you don't - you just have you agenda and prejudice and bend the facts to fit your story.

I think ED (or Moonshift/Fildraw) lent the money to repay Blumarble to Ken Anderson personally. When the BM loan was repaid out of these funds, KA took a similar charge against Burnden Leisure to the one BM had. So Burnden Leisure instead of owing BM £4m, now owes £4m to KA which KA in turn owes to ED's estate. I expect its possible that the terms of the £10m Fildraw loan may have been changed as part of the arrangement.

Yes I'm sure all that is correct.

However it is still KA's money that he's put into the club - just the same as if KA had borrowed the money from say the bank to pay off BM.  

If for whatever reason the club can't pay KA back in time for the loan to be settled, he will still owe Eddie Davies / Moonshift the money - so he will have to sell off his personal assets to settle the debt - which in the case will be handing over the ownership of the club - which he values at around £5 million plus apparently.

So on paper at least he stands to lose an asset he owns - set against the ability of the club to repay his loan back to him in order to settle ED's loan to him - or his ability to raise enough funds elsewhere to satisfy the loan from Eddie.

Good point well made, Sluffy.

Something tells me that Marc Iles has been spying on Nuts and nicking my homework. He's still keeping stum, though, on the probable destination of Ken's 525K (before tax) consultancy fee and so is his  'mate' at the Daily Mail.

Clue No 1 has already been explained but anyone interested can find chapter and verse in the accounts of Inner Circle Investments here:

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

Take a look at the cost of its investment in Burnden Leisure



Clue No. 2 is here:

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

Take a quick look at the Progress Report on the liquidation of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd


Clue No. 3 is here:

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

Take a look at the accounts of Sports Shield Investments Ltd for 2016, 2017 and 2018 (filed 3 days  ago).

Some might be curious about how an 'investment company' (with one employee, Dean Holdsworth) has managed to accumulate and distribute so much cash without ever having any investments on its balance sheet.

Clue No.4 is here:

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

Sports  Shield Ltd - Another one man company with minimal share capital but 312K on its balance sheet at 31 March 2017.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Bolton. Pay solution in air. Pfa to pick up HALF of tab. Anderson the other half. Needs to be in fast. Players can walk if in default much longer.

MartinBWFC wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Bolton. Pay solution in air. Pfa to pick up HALF of tab. Anderson the other half. Needs to be in fast. Players can walk if in default much longer.

Is that what Nixon is saying? Ken's going to pay half the wages himself?

I hope my memory isn't playing tricks, but wasn't Nixon publicising how badly Ken was treating poor impecunious Deano about 18 months ago?

Poor little Sports Shield Ltd was really struggling. It only had 119K at the bank in March 2016 (a couple of weeks after the takeover) and a measly 312K a year later.

And spare a thought for Sports Shield Investments, after paying out a trifling 125K in dividends it had only 139K at the bank in July 2016 and 252K a year later.

Don't you think the BN and the Sun might have been a little bit interested to know where this money might have come from?

Daft question, I know.

I still find these loans puzzling. Why does Ken borrow from Moonshift (Eddie) and then lend it to Burnden Leisure (BWFC). What is also dubious is that Ken is signing for both sides in the charge between Burnden Leisure and Ken!

maconman wrote:I still find these loans puzzling. Why does Ken borrow from Moonshift (Eddie) and then lend it to Burnden Leisure (BWFC). What is also dubious is that Ken is signing for both sides in the charge between Burnden Leisure and Ken!

Well my initial though is that the big difference between the two is that Anderson has now got his own personal at risk/or lose the ownership of the club - if he doesn't repay Eddie/Moonshift back.

If Eddies money had simply increased his already loans to the club and the club went into Admin then Davies would be the one to have to take a 'haircut' (accept less in the pound repayment than what he borrowed) whilst Anderson still retained some form of benefit in the club.

As for your second point the agreement is between himself (as a person) and the legal entity that is Burnden Leisure Ltd - and I would assume as declared a conflict of interest as such and not be involved in the charge on assets from the club side as such.

maconman wrote:I still find these loans puzzling. Why does Ken borrow from Moonshift (Eddie) and then lend it to Burnden Leisure (BWFC). What is also dubious is that Ken is signing for both sides in the charge between Burnden Leisure and Ken!

Nothing remotely dubious about it. Anderson has borrowed money that he has loaned to Burnden Leisure to keep it in business and has, quite rightly, taken a charge as security.

I don't know Ken Anderson at all but I do know my way round balance sheets and finance and I do know when media reporting is inept, incompetent, dishonest, slanted, jaundiced, biased and prejudiced and there has been far too much of this concerning BWFC for far too long.

Anyway the lads have put in a  real effort today so lets get behind them and off Ken Anderson's back next Saturday.

Yes. We'll give Leeds a real pasting.

I don't think many have accused the players of not trying.They are just a rank awful team in this league. For example today they equalise in the 92nd minute but still don't have the composure needed to keep the ball out of the back of their net for 3 minutes.

Sluffy wrote:

maconman wrote:I still find these loans puzzling. Why does Ken borrow from Moonshift (Eddie) and then lend it to Burnden Leisure (BWFC). What is also dubious is that Ken is signing for both sides in the charge between Burnden Leisure and Ken!

Well my initial though is that the big difference between the two is that Anderson has now got his own personal money at risk/or lose the ownership of the club - if he doesn't repay Eddie/Moonshift back.

If Eddies money had simply increased his already loans to the club and the club went into Admin then Davies would be the one to have to take a 'haircut' (accept less in the pound repayment than what he borrowed) whilst Anderson still retained some form of benefit in the club.

As for your second point the agreement is between himself (as a person) and the legal entity that is Burnden Leisure Ltd - and I would assume as declared a conflict of interest as such and not be involved in the charge on assets from the club side as such.

So far, KA has been unable to get anyone else to take on the  responsibilities of being a director of Burnden Leisure or BWFC so there really is no-one else  to make a declaration of interest to.

The lawyers dealing with these transactions would, though, normally ensure that all the paperwork is in order.

Appropriate declarations of directors interest should also be reported in the audited  accounts. They always have been, so far as I can see, except that there are clear discrepancies between disclosures in the 2016 accounts of Burnden Leisure concerning Sports Shield BWFC Ltd and SSBWFC's own filed accounts.

Plenty of anti Anderson chanting yesterday from the majority of the away supporters.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Something tells me that Marc Iles has been spying on Nuts and nicking my homework. He's still keeping stum, though, on the probable destination of Ken's 525K (before tax) consultancy fee and so is his  'mate' at the Daily Mail.

Clue No 1 has already been explained but anyone interested can find chapter and verse in the accounts of Inner Circle Investments here:

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

Take a look at the cost of its investment in Burnden Leisure


Clue No. 2 is here:

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

Take a quick look at the Progress Report on the liquidation of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd


Clue No. 3 is here:

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

Take a look at the accounts of Sports Shield Investments Ltd for 2016, 2017 and 2018 (filed 3 days  ago).

Some might be curious about how an 'investment company' (with one employee, Dean Holdsworth) has managed to accumulate and distribute so much cash without ever having any investments on its balance sheet.


Clue No.4 is here:

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

Sports  Shield Ltd - Another one man company with minimal share capital but 312K on its balance sheet at 31 March 2017.

Fascinating stuff (it is if you like things like this), thank you Ten Bob.

I can't pretended to understand all the details (and implications thereof) but clearly things run far, far deeper than most people knew (or even cared about).

If I've understood correctly some of what I've read it looks like BluMarble were seeking over £8 million in repayments - so it does look to me that Anderson did manage to negotiate that down by over £3 million - which of course was secured on the clubs assets by Holdsworth - with Anderson himself (ok it came from a personal loan to him from Eddie but as explained above he loses ownership of the club if he doesn't pay it back) putting in £5 million himself towards settling the debt (and others outstanding at the time - Heathcote's for one).

Clearly the accounts show Holdsworth has received (and still retains) a considerable some of money yet no one in the media (or ST) refers to this at all yet tweets about payments made to Anderson regarding consultation fees.

I wonder what our erstwhile club reporter would 'tweet' if it did turn out as you suspect that the 'consultation' fee was really just a means of enriching Holdsworth to walk away from the debacle he created with the BluMarble loan whilst having no money to pay it back with?

Obviously that is a rhetorical question because clearly Holdsworth is 'protected' from any criticism by his mate at the Bolton News!

In my opinion anyway.

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Something tells me that Marc Iles has been spying on Nuts and nicking my homework. He's still keeping stum, though, on the probable destination of Ken's 525K (before tax) consultancy fee and so is his  'mate' at the Daily Mail.

Clue No 1 has already been explained but anyone interested can find chapter and verse in the accounts of Inner Circle Investments here:

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

Take a look at the cost of its investment in Burnden Leisure


Clue No. 2 is here:

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

Take a quick look at the Progress Report on the liquidation of Sports Shield BWFC Ltd


Clue No. 3 is here:

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

Take a look at the accounts of Sports Shield Investments Ltd for 2016, 2017 and 2018 (filed 3 days  ago).

Some might be curious about how an 'investment company' (with one employee, Dean Holdsworth) has managed to accumulate and distribute so much cash without ever having any investments on its balance sheet.


Clue No.4 is here:

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

Sports  Shield Ltd - Another one man company with minimal share capital but 312K on its balance sheet at 31 March 2017.

Fascinating stuff (it is if you like things like this), thank you Ten Bob.

I can't pretended to understand all the details (and implications thereof) but clearly things run far, far deeper than most people knew (or even cared about).

If I've understood correctly some of what I've read it looks like BluMarble were seeking over £8 million in repayments - so it does look to me that Anderson did manage to negotiate that down by over £3 million - which of course was secured on the clubs assets by Holdsworth - with Anderson himself (ok it came from a personal loan to him from Eddie but as explained above he loses ownership of the club if he doesn't pay it back) putting in £5 million himself towards settling the debt (and others outstanding at the time - Heathcote's for one).

Clearly the accounts show Holdsworth has received (and still retains) a considerable some of money yet no one in the media (or ST) refers to this at all yet tweets about payments made to Anderson regarding consultation fees.

I wonder what our erstwhile club reporter would 'tweet' if it did turn out as you suspect that the 'consultation' fee was really just a means of enriching Holdsworth to walk away from the debacle he created with the BluMarble loan whilst having no money to pay it back with?

Obviously that is a rhetorical question because clearly Holdsworth is 'protected' from any criticism by his mate at the Bolton News!

In my opinion anyway.

There's a lot to comment on there, Sluffy, but it is true that there's been blind-eye turning and ludicrously false claims made on social media whilst Anderson has been made to look like the bad guy when its been Anderson that's done all the heavy lifting, taken on all the responsibilities and faced all the flack.

Meanwhile Dean Holdsworth and his advisors appear to have been the only ones profiting from the unaffordable amounts Anderson has had to find to keep Blumarble at bay whilst trying to reduce operating deficits and make the club into a more affordable proposition for new owners.

If I have time, I'll talk you through all the figures, as best I can, on another occasion. The trail is made more difficult to explain, and therefore to follow, because of the involvement of several companies and because some filed documents conflict starkly with others.