Crunch time: Ken Anderson faces biggest Wanderers challenge

Sluffy wrote:The charge document(Debenture) dated 10th March 2016, signed by Holdsworth and witnessed by Simon Marland, the clubs secretary.

(apologies as I'd thought that Marland was the signature and not the witness - as I stated above).

The Debenture is between Burnden Leisure and BluMarble -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00335699/charges/QpS1PaxqCDFoBahSpmFGfsTnZCQ

Note - click on the view PDF link shown.

Also note the club takeover happened on the same day 10th March, 2016 -

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2016/march/club-statement2/

Seems like there might be a contingent liability here. Signed by Holdsworth but not by BM. I can see why KA will take this to court as DH might have been acting ultra vires here. This will roll and roll.

I'm actually more concerned by the fact Marland witnessed this as an officer of the club. He really must have known he couldn't do that on his own authority and that even if the board were willing to agree they had no recourse to do it given that the Hotel in particular was already serving as collateral for other financing unless I've misread what the accounts say. Why and how did that happen?

luckyPeterpiper wrote:What? But how could Marland have witnessed such a document? Even as Club Secretary he wouldn't have the authority to do that on his own and the club couldn't legally give it to him since several of the assets mentioned already had a charge against them didn't they?

Either way I'd always operated under the assumption Holdsworth had done the same thing the Glazers did at Man Utd but he didn't if those documents are right. Basically Sportshield seems to have been created from thin air for the sole purpose of putting a lien on assets they did not own. Isn't that fraudulent? It smacks of 'obtaining goods (in this case the assets of Burnden Leisure) under false pretences' to me or am I misreading this?

Sluffy, my apologies, I'd assumed Sportshield and Dean had presented BluMarble with a business plan including projected income before securing the financing but it seems they just sort of walked in and said 'give us this dosh and if we don't pay you can have the assets'. How did BluMarble even justify granting the loan in these circumstances?

That's ok Peter, I know you've not been in the best of health for the last year or two so I'm not surprised you didn't follow all the various nuances that have taken place between Anderson and the likes of Holdsworth/BluMarble during all this time.

I have felt as though I've been a lone voice at times but unlike some I simply followed the facts as given and not jumped to various assumptions based on past history of over a decade ago.

Clearly there's been some murky water the club as travelled in recently and some of the people Holdsworth has been linked to during his takeover of the club from Davies have seemed to have been a little shady looking back now - in my opinion.

I'm amazed that people have been so anti-Anderson since he's arrived, as on the face of it he's been the good guy all the time.

Seems clear to me that the likes of Iles, the ST and the LoV all were pro Holdsworth and anti-Anderson from the very start and although all three have since stopped leading the bandwagon against him, have not to any extent at all imo - put the same effort in to being in anyway critical of Holdsworth's 'questionable' actions - nor the money he's taken out of the club - far more it would seem than anything KA and LA combined are accused of taking out of it!

Ah well at least the penny will now drop for anyone reading this thread.

Or perhaps not with one or two...

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I'm actually more concerned by the fact Marland witnessed this as an officer of the club. He really must have known he couldn't do that on his own authority and that even if the board were willing to agree they had no recourse to do it given that the Hotel in particular was already serving as collateral for other financing unless I've misread what the accounts say. Why and how did that happen?

He's witnessed a signature Peter - nothing more, nothing less.

He's just attesting that Holdsworth was the person who actually signed the document.

He didn't witness it as representing the club or anything.

He just happened to be there I guess.

It still stinks sluffy. Whether he signed it as a private individual or not he has to know that the way in which the loan was set up is at least questionable because his own position as an officer of the board means he's obliged to know what the financial state of play vis a vis Burnden Leisure, BWFC and its various assets were. In which case he's knowingly assisted in what could arguably be called a fraud. Of course I have to be careful not to libel Mr Marland so I'll simply state that at best he's been ignorant of things he should have been aware of and exercised questionable judgement. At worst he's proven himself to be incompetent for the office he held.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:It still stinks sluffy. Whether he signed it as a private individual or not he has to know that the way in which the loan was set up is at least questionable because his own position as an officer of the board means he's obliged to know what the financial state of play vis a vis Burnden Leisure, BWFC and its various assets were. In which case he's knowingly assisted in what could arguably be called a fraud. Of course I have to be careful not to libel Mr Marland so I'll simply state that at best he's been ignorant of things he should have been aware of and exercised questionable judgement. At worst he's proven himself to be incompetent for the office he held.

He's an employee of the company and his new boss (day one remember) says would you mind just witnessing my signature - what would you do?

He might not even know what the document was about - as all he was doing was attesting that the signature was indeed that of Holdsworth.

I don't think he's done anything wrong personally - I think most people would have simply done the same.

Sluffy wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:It still stinks sluffy. Whether he signed it as a private individual or not he has to know that the way in which the loan was set up is at least questionable because his own position as an officer of the board means he's obliged to know what the financial state of play vis a vis Burnden Leisure, BWFC and its various assets were. In which case he's knowingly assisted in what could arguably be called a fraud. Of course I have to be careful not to libel Mr Marland so I'll simply state that at best he's been ignorant of things he should have been aware of and exercised questionable judgement. At worst he's proven himself to be incompetent for the office he held.

He's an employee of the company and his new boss (day one remember) says would you mind just witnessing my signature - what would you do?

He might not even know what the document was about - as all he was doing was attesting that the signature was indeed that of Holdsworth.

I don't think he's done anything wrong personally - I think most people would have simply done the same.

I really REALLY disagree there mate. Marland wasn't just an employee. As Company Secretary he was an Officer Of The Company, one of the top three officials and so he was obliged to know the true state of the company's finances. As Company Secretary he's actually responsible for the accuracy of the company's records and accounts and as such there is no way in hell he should have signed anything pertaining to the club's assets or finances without being fully aware of what it said. In point of fact the Secretary in a limited company like Bolton Wanderers is often the person who runs the entire business in concert with a Chief Exec or Chief Operating Officer on a day to day business while the chairman is a figure head.It's the secretary who is obliged to attest to the accuracy of documents including audits and as such Mr Marland should have at the very least read a major financial instrument carefully before signing it. This brings me back to my point. Either he knowingly signed a document he knew to be effectively illegal or he's a complete incompetent. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say the latter. I'm far from certain that Companies House and HMRC would be so willing to give him that benefit though.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:It still stinks sluffy. Whether he signed it as a private individual or not he has to know that the way in which the loan was set up is at least questionable because his own position as an officer of the board means he's obliged to know what the financial state of play vis a vis Burnden Leisure, BWFC and its various assets were. In which case he's knowingly assisted in what could arguably be called a fraud. Of course I have to be careful not to libel Mr Marland so I'll simply state that at best he's been ignorant of things he should have been aware of and exercised questionable judgement. At worst he's proven himself to be incompetent for the office he held.

He's an employee of the company and his new boss (day one remember) says would you mind just witnessing my signature - what would you do?

He might not even know what the document was about - as all he was doing was attesting that the signature was indeed that of Holdsworth.

I don't think he's done anything wrong personally - I think most people would have simply done the same.

I really REALLY disagree there mate. Marland wasn't just an employee. As Company Secretary he was an Officer Of The Company, one of the top three officials and so he was obliged to know the true state of the company's finances. As Company Secretary he's actually responsible for the accuracy of the company's records and accounts and as such there is no way in hell he should have signed anything pertaining to the club's assets or finances without being fully aware of what it said. In point of fact the Secretary in a limited company like Bolton Wanderers is often the person who runs the entire business in concert with a Chief Exec or Chief Operating Officer on a day to day business while the chairman is a figure head.It's the secretary who is obliged to attest to the accuracy of documents including audits and as such Mr Marland should have at the very least read a major financial instrument carefully before signing it. This brings me back to my point. Either he knowingly signed a document he knew to be effectively illegal or he's a complete incompetent. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say the latter. I'm far from certain that Companies House and HMRC would be so willing to give him that benefit though.

He didn't sign it as the company secretary though Peter, he didn't sign it on behalf of Bolton Wanders either.

He simply attested that Holdsworth signature was genuine.

He had no reason to even look at the document - it wasn't what he was signing - his whole reason for his name to be on the document was simply to confirm that Dean Holdsworth was actually the person who did enter into a contract with another party.

No more, no less.

It could have equally have been Doris the tea lady who signed as the witness.

Marland's status and position at the club was completely irrelevant to him signing as a witness to Holdsworth signing the document.

Sluffy wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:It still stinks sluffy. Whether he signed it as a private individual or not he has to know that the way in which the loan was set up is at least questionable because his own position as an officer of the board means he's obliged to know what the financial state of play vis a vis Burnden Leisure, BWFC and its various assets were. In which case he's knowingly assisted in what could arguably be called a fraud. Of course I have to be careful not to libel Mr Marland so I'll simply state that at best he's been ignorant of things he should have been aware of and exercised questionable judgement. At worst he's proven himself to be incompetent for the office he held.

He's an employee of the company and his new boss (day one remember) says would you mind just witnessing my signature - what would you do?

He might not even know what the document was about - as all he was doing was attesting that the signature was indeed that of Holdsworth.

I don't think he's done anything wrong personally - I think most people would have simply done the same.

I really REALLY disagree there mate. Marland wasn't just an employee. As Company Secretary he was an Officer Of The Company, one of the top three officials and so he was obliged to know the true state of the company's finances. As Company Secretary he's actually responsible for the accuracy of the company's records and accounts and as such there is no way in hell he should have signed anything pertaining to the club's assets or finances without being fully aware of what it said. In point of fact the Secretary in a limited company like Bolton Wanderers is often the person who runs the entire business in concert with a Chief Exec or Chief Operating Officer on a day to day business while the chairman is a figure head.It's the secretary who is obliged to attest to the accuracy of documents including audits and as such Mr Marland should have at the very least read a major financial instrument carefully before signing it. This brings me back to my point. Either he knowingly signed a document he knew to be effectively illegal or he's a complete incompetent. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say the latter. I'm far from certain that Companies House and HMRC would be so willing to give him that benefit though.

He didn't sign it as the company secretary though Peter, he didn't sign it on behalf of Bolton Wanders either.

He simply attested that Holdsworth signature was genuine.

He had no reason to even look at the document - it wasn't what he was signing - his whole reason for his name to be on the document was simply to confirm that Dean Holdsworth was actually the person who did enter into a contract with another party.

No more, no less.

It could have equally have been Doris the tea lady who signed as the witness.

Marland's status and position at the club was completely irrelevant to him signing as a witness to Holdsworth signing the document.

Come on mate, that doesn't fly. If I'm asked to sign anything regardless of capacity I make damned certain I know what it says. Since Martland knew the document concerned the club he had a duty to ascertain what it actually said not just a right. I do get what you're saying about him only being a witness to say 'yes dean holdsworth did sign this on x date' but I'd argue (and I bet ken's lawyers will as well) that he was beholden to at least ask what it was dean was signing given that it was clearly club business. Even if he wasn't absolutely duty bound to do that he damned well should have asked and once informed he should have told them Dean couldn't sign it given the nature of the agreement contained in the document.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:It still stinks sluffy. Whether he signed it as a private individual or not he has to know that the way in which the loan was set up is at least questionable because his own position as an officer of the board means he's obliged to know what the financial state of play vis a vis Burnden Leisure, BWFC and its various assets were. In which case he's knowingly assisted in what could arguably be called a fraud. Of course I have to be careful not to libel Mr Marland so I'll simply state that at best he's been ignorant of things he should have been aware of and exercised questionable judgement. At worst he's proven himself to be incompetent for the office he held.

He's an employee of the company and his new boss (day one remember) says would you mind just witnessing my signature - what would you do?

He might not even know what the document was about - as all he was doing was attesting that the signature was indeed that of Holdsworth.

I don't think he's done anything wrong personally - I think most people would have simply done the same.

I really REALLY disagree there mate. Marland wasn't just an employee. As Company Secretary he was an Officer Of The Company, one of the top three officials and so he was obliged to know the true state of the company's finances. As Company Secretary he's actually responsible for the accuracy of the company's records and accounts and as such there is no way in hell he should have signed anything pertaining to the club's assets or finances without being fully aware of what it said. In point of fact the Secretary in a limited company like Bolton Wanderers is often the person who runs the entire business in concert with a Chief Exec or Chief Operating Officer on a day to day business while the chairman is a figure head.It's the secretary who is obliged to attest to the accuracy of documents including audits and as such Mr Marland should have at the very least read a major financial instrument carefully before signing it. This brings me back to my point. Either he knowingly signed a document he knew to be effectively illegal or he's a complete incompetent. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say the latter. I'm far from certain that Companies House and HMRC would be so willing to give him that benefit though.

He didn't sign it as the company secretary though Peter, he didn't sign it on behalf of Bolton Wanders either.

He simply attested that Holdsworth signature was genuine.

He had no reason to even look at the document - it wasn't what he was signing - his whole reason for his name to be on the document was simply to confirm that Dean Holdsworth was actually the person who did enter into a contract with another party.

No more, no less.

It could have equally have been Doris the tea lady who signed as the witness.

Marland's status and position at the club was completely irrelevant to him signing as a witness to Holdsworth signing the document.

Come on mate, that doesn't fly. If I'm asked to sign anything regardless of capacity I make damned certain I know what it says. Since Martland knew the document concerned the club he had a duty to ascertain what it actually said not just a right. I do get what you're saying about him only being a witness to say 'yes dean holdsworth did sign this on x date' but I'd argue (and I bet ken's lawyers will as well) that he was beholden to at least ask what it was dean was signing given that it was clearly club business. Even if he wasn't absolutely duty bound to do that he damned well should have asked and once informed he should have told them Dean couldn't sign it given the nature of the agreement contained in the document.

Peter you can believe what you want but the bottom line is that all the witness is doing is attesting that they have seen that said person signing the document.

I'm not aware of anything in law that states they have to even know what is in the document being signed - as all they are doing is saying that they witnessed so and so sign the document.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I get that but let me ask you a question. Don't you think it odd that a senior member of the board, an actual officer of the company (one of three including the chairman and treasurer) just happened to be the one to witness the signature on what is in all likelihood an illegal document? Don't you find it strange that someone in such a position would sign anything without at least making a cursory enquiry as to its contents particularly given the fact that it pertained to the very area for which he is legally responsible? Sure, in law he's done nothing other than witness a signature but from a business point of view doesn't it strike you as at least questionable?

I know he's covered legally in that he's not responsible for the contents of the document or the consequences of the agreement but it still strikes me as somewhat fishy mate. He must have had at least some idea of what Dean was signing and a few very cursory questions would have told him that it couldn't possibly be right.

On the one hand, Anderson is portrayed as an astute businessesman who will resolve our financial situation as he will always get the best deal and nothing gets past him.
On the other hand, he is portrayed as an innocent victim of the evil Deano's cunning plot - even though there is no evidence for that other than what Anderson himself puts out via the clubs PR department which he controls.

I guess there's always a way to portray him a good light regardless of what he does.

As yet however, there is no case for trusting him implicitly.