OFFICIAL - No Administration, No points deduction, No embargo!

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.

Natasha Whittam wrote:You seem very angry this week. Did someone set fire to your armchair?

Natasha Whittam wrote:You seem very angry this week. Did someone set fire to your armchair?

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.

You think it's a strange move from BluMarble? Really? How is that any stranger than Anderson signing a contract, then saying he sees no reason why the payments won't be met just days before the due date, then reneging on the deal and refusing to talk to them which inevitably caused the whole mess?
Now that is strange especially for someone who claims to be at least competent in business - but perhaps it's not because he's done it before and is widely known to be a twat.

Nigelbwfc wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.

You think it's a strange move from BluMarble? Really? How is that any stranger than Anderson signing a contract, then saying he sees no reason why the payments won't be met just days before the due date, then reneging on the deal and refusing to talk to them which inevitably caused the whole mess?
Now that is strange especially for someone who claims to be at least competent in business - but perhaps it's not because he's done it before and is widely known to be a twat.

I was on holiday when all this broke out.

I've not seen the piece where it says Anderson signed a contract and the reneged on the deal with Blu Marble. Can you point me in the right direction? 

As for Anderson being a "twat" (your words), then that's music to my ears. We've needed a "twat" at the helm for along time.

wanderlust wrote:

Nigelbwfc wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I still find this a strange move from BluMarble all the way around. There's more to come out on this issue I'm sure. Hopefully we can relax a little now but I'd be lying if I said I felt completely confident that our worries are anywhere near over.

You think it's a strange move from BluMarble? Really? How is that any stranger than Anderson signing a contract, then saying he sees no reason why the payments won't be met just days before the due date, then reneging on the deal and refusing to talk to them which inevitably caused the whole mess?
Now that is strange especially for someone who claims to be at least competent in business - but perhaps it's not because he's done it before and is widely known to be a twat.

I was on holiday when all this broke out.

I've not seen the piece where it says Anderson signed a contract and the reneged on the deal with Blu Marble. Can you point me in the right direction? 

As for Anderson being a "twat" (your words), then that's music to my ears. We've needed a "twat" at the helm for along time.

There were several - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which includes the lines "Anderson said he had an offer for the full amount plus interest turned down – but sources in the BluMarble camp denied his claim."


I think we can agree that the BM version of events is more likely to be the truth and that Anderson didn't cough up as per the contract or they wouldn't have had a case to take to court in the first place would they? 


Anyhow, if someone owed you money and they offered to pay the full amount plus interest, would you turn it down? I don't think so.


As regards the "twat" comment - if you're interpreting that as someone who is careful with the club's money I'd be inclined to agree after the Gartside debacle, however a) we don't know yet if Anderson is being careful with the money or simply selling off the club's assets to prop up his own controlling position until he can get a big payoff and b) there are much richer "twats" who can actually afford to run a Championship club so he's not the twat I'd have by choice. I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that Anderson needs to sell out to a richer "twat" now - especially as Anderson has now pointed to a £13million income deficit on the horizon. Hopefully our American friend is still an option despite Anderson hanging around for a bit longer.

observer wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

There were several - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which includes the lines "Anderson said he had an offer for the full amount plus interest turned down – but sources in the BluMarble camp denied his claim."


I think we can agree that the BM version of events is more likely to be the truth and that Anderson didn't cough up as per the contract or they wouldn't have had a case to take to court in the first place would they? 


Anyhow, if someone owed you money and they offered to pay the full amount plus interest, would you turn it down? I don't think so.


As regards the "twat" comment - if you're interpreting that as someone who is careful with the club's money I'd be inclined to agree after the Gartside debacle, however a) we don't know yet if Anderson is being careful with the money or simply selling off the club's assets to prop up his own controlling position until he can get a big payoff and b) there are much richer "twats" who can actually afford to run a Championship club so he's not the twat I'd have by choice. I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that Anderson needs to sell out to a richer "twat" now - especially as Anderson has now pointed to a £13million income deficit on the horizon. Hopefully our American friend is still an option despite Anderson hanging around for a bit longer.

Strictly a guess... and someone else mentioned it before... but the terms of payment to BM was the problem.  KA wanted to extend payments and BM wanted it all or would move to bring the club to administration.  It's a reasonable guess... but we should also remember it was DeanO who borrowed the money initially and took the rather usurious interest charges (at least we are led to believe the interest percentage was high).

Travelodge wrote:Anderson renegotiated the payment structure and agreed to the Sep 01st 2018 deadline for full & final settlement of the debt.

It was nothing to do with Holdsworth.

He was already long gone.

Stop telling lies to defend your hero.

wanderlust wrote:
You mean the repayment terms that Anderson himself had renegotiated after the first repayment was missed?

Just speculation but what do you know about Anderson's role in Deano taking on the original loan? We should also remember that Deano had twice tried to save the club before Anderson became his partner.

Travelodge wrote:I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.

Travelodge wrote:I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.

Sluffy wrote:

Travelodge wrote:I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.

Thank you, I'll reply back to you in short words also - that wasn't what Wanderlust was talking about (he even set it in context by going on to talk about Holdsworth taking out the loan and what involvement Anderson had!).

That's why I answered his remarks factually.

You on the other hand obviously misread what was written and gone off half-cocked and have clearly tried to cover up your mistake by attempting to ridicule me.

I noticed you didn't answer why you're no longer tweeting right now - did you?

Enforced break again perhaps?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Travelodge wrote:I'll explain it slowly, using short words, in the hope that it sinks in, shall I?

When Anderson took sole ownership of the club, he renegotiated the debt with BM.

He discussed restructuring the terms of the repayment.

He agreed to a revised repayment schedule.

He signed a legal document to this effect.

(That means he agreed to pay it back when he said he would.)

He then missed the deadline for full & final settlement that HE (ie not Dean Holdsworth) agreed and signed up to on the 1st of September.

So this: "so had nothing at all to do with Anderson when the first (and every other!) repayment was missed" is a pile of bollocks.


I can sort of accept your convoluted attempts to obfuscate the issue (because that's what you do & you probably don't know any better) but please stop lying.

Thank you, I'll reply back to you in short words also - that wasn't what Wanderlust was talking about (he even set it in context by going on to talk about Holdsworth taking out the loan and what involvement Anderson had!).

That's why I answered his remarks factually.

You on the other hand obviously misread what was written and gone off half-cocked and have clearly tried to cover up your mistake by attempting to ridicule me.

I noticed you didn't answer why you're no longer tweeting right now - did you?

Enforced break again perhaps?

That's not true. I said Anderson had renegotiated, but as regards his potential role in setting up the loan in the first place I clearly qualified the suggestion by opening with the words "just speculation" as a separate and subsequent comment. In no way was I contextualising the factual part about it being Anderson's deal - it was merely, as you would put it, just a thought.

At least we're all agreed that the deal Anderson reneged on was the deal Anderson made.