Ken Anderson - update.

Growler wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

 "We are sure supporters will be very pleased to understand that as part of the transaction, all of the existing loans to the club will be settled in full and the associated charges removed, meaning the business will be debt free for the first time in many years." 

I expect that to be a load of crap.Love to be proven wrong and the club is debt free in a few weeks.

Hoping it's new money as opposed to taking on more debt to settle the current bills. Should be in theory.

Sluffy, Seriously Mate, your obsessed !!!!!

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I'm not being a 'told you so' nor actually believing all is as good as it appears to be but at least let us have a laugh at someone who thinks (probably believes too) that he is smarter than the rest of us, when he clearly has got stuff completely and utterly wrong after telling us otherwise, abusively too, for the last few years.

So you've seen the accounts then seeing that's the only possible way you'd know if I got anything wrong? Correction: suspected anything was wrong.

Or are you using the same crystal ball that tells you what I think?

Did we have £45m of assets more than debts when Ken took over - NO, we actually had £186 debt more than assets.

Have we been made bankrupt - NO, the clubs been sold with all the loans and associated charges to be removed.

Which statement/s do you not find factual?

Also I'm still waiting for the links to all these "multiple chat forums" you tell me I've been crowing on.

Apart from the obvious fact that at the time of writing the club WAS facing bankruptcy. Here's Ken's first published accounts. He was appointed Director in March 2016 and these accounts are to June 2016. Look like assets to me....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

wanderlust wrote:

Growler wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

 "We are sure supporters will be very pleased to understand that as part of the transaction, all of the existing loans to the club will be settled in full and the associated charges removed, meaning the business will be debt free for the first time in many years." 

I expect that to be a load of crap.Love to be proven wrong and the club is debt free in a few weeks.

Hoping it's new money as opposed to taking on more debt to settle the current bills. Should be in theory.

I just think its bollox, the debts won't be cleared in a few weeks

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I'm not being a 'told you so' nor actually believing all is as good as it appears to be but at least let us have a laugh at someone who thinks (probably believes too) that he is smarter than the rest of us, when he clearly has got stuff completely and utterly wrong after telling us otherwise, abusively too, for the last few years.

So you've seen the accounts then seeing that's the only possible way you'd know if I got anything wrong? Correction: suspected anything was wrong.

Or are you using the same crystal ball that tells you what I think?

Did we have £45m of assets more than debts when Ken took over - NO, we actually had £186 debt more than assets.

Have we been made bankrupt - NO, the clubs been sold with all the loans and associated charges to be removed.

Which statement/s do you not find factual?

Also I'm still waiting for the links to all these "multiple chat forums" you tell me I've been crowing on.

Apart from the obvious fact that at the time of writing the club WAS facing bankruptcy. Here's Ken's first published accounts. He was appointed Director in March 2016 and these accounts are to June 2016. Look like assets to me....

I can't view whatever it was you were trying to show.

Please find however a link to the clubs published accounts up to the 30th June 2016, by clicking on the pf against the entry for the 25th July, 2017.

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

If you then turn to page 7, you will see that it is reported that fixed and current assets amounted to £32,854,410 and £5,850,694 respectively.

However the liabilities show that there were creditors falling due within the year of £44,734,624 giving a deficit of £6,029,520 on net current liabilities (ie debts were more than assets)

And when creditors falling due after more than one year were also included of £180,134,058.

Giving a total trading position at the time Anderson took over the club with Holdsworth of £186,163,578 more liabilities than assets!!!

It is there in black and white in the AUDITED PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS.

It couldn't be any clearer ffs!

But you know best - or think you do.


Serious question, did you think the £44,734,624 was actually the sum of assets Anderson had available to him - the £45m you kept mentioning?  I bet that's what you have done isn't it????  You've thought the fixed asset total plus the current asset total was shown as £45m.

Hahahaha!!!

Norpig wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

MartinBWFC wrote:

karlypants wrote:

Climb out ffs

It's funny Martin.

For three years I've had him almost daily pontificating that he knew that Anderson was asset stripping and going to bankrupt us - and was highly personally abusive with it - not only about Anderson but myself too.

Despite me (and others) pointing out that there were no assets to strip he carried on until it was proved to him beyond a shadow of doubt that he was factually wrong - by a margin of £231m too!

And today - he's still banging on about bankruptcy, yet within an hour of doing so the club is bought and Bassini the new owner saying that ALL creditors will be paid.

 "We are sure supporters will be very pleased to understand that as part of the transaction, all of the existing loans to the club will be settled in full and the associated charges removed, meaning the business will be debt free for the first time in many years." 


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


To be fair it as yet to happen but everyone is going along the line that it will.


So if the measure of Anderson's tenure is how he has left us, doesn't it actually seem that he's left us with a new owner making the club free from debt (Anderson had the BM loan hanging over him from day one don't forget), then hasn't he appeared at least to have got us from Eddie Davies to Bassini in one piece despite having no money and so many financial obstacles to overcome?


I'm not being a 'told you so' nor actually believing all is as good as it appears to be but at least let us have a laugh at someone who thinks (probably believes too) that he is smarter than the rest of us, when he clearly has got stuff completely and utterly wrong after telling us otherwise, abusively too, for the last few years.

Jesus Sluffy, if KA shagged your wife you'd probably drive him home afterwards and say thanks 

So would I. It's the proper and well mannered thing to do. Course if he bought me a Carr's pastie on the way I'd be more grateful.  

Anything that keeps Sluffy's mind off the ST is fine with me. For all his so called even handed meanderings regarding Ken, he never wastes an opportunity to stick the knife into the ST.
Maybe it's personal.

boltonbonce wrote:Anything that keeps Sluffy's mind off the ST is fine with me. For all his so called even handed meanderings regarding Ken, he never wastes an opportunity to stick the knife into the ST.
Maybe it's personal.

Just out of interest apart from copying and pasting Iles report on the ST meeting on Monday, and did my 'jokey' What have we learned, parody news effort, shortly afterwards, when was the last time I even mentioned them?

With apparently it being personal with me and all that?

Sluff, if you don’t hate the ST or blindly follow Anderson that’s fine - but accept that is how every single poster has interpreted your posts, so the delivery of your thoughts has clearly caused that. Nobody’s making it up to wind you up.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I'm not being a 'told you so' nor actually believing all is as good as it appears to be but at least let us have a laugh at someone who thinks (probably believes too) that he is smarter than the rest of us, when he clearly has got stuff completely and utterly wrong after telling us otherwise, abusively too, for the last few years.

So you've seen the accounts then seeing that's the only possible way you'd know if I got anything wrong? Correction: suspected anything was wrong.

Or are you using the same crystal ball that tells you what I think?

Did we have £45m of assets more than debts when Ken took over - NO, we actually had £186 debt more than assets.

Have we been made bankrupt - NO, the clubs been sold with all the loans and associated charges to be removed.

Which statement/s do you not find factual?

Also I'm still waiting for the links to all these "multiple chat forums" you tell me I've been crowing on.

Apart from the obvious fact that at the time of writing the club WAS facing bankruptcy. Here's Ken's first published accounts. He was appointed Director in March 2016 and these accounts are to June 2016. Look like assets to me....

I can't view whatever it was you were trying to show.

Please find however a link to the clubs published accounts up to the 30th June 2016, by clicking on the pf against the entry for the 25th July, 2017.

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

If you then turn to page 7, you will see that it is reported that fixed and current assets amounted to £32,854,410 and £5,850,694 respectively.

However the liabilities show that there were creditors falling due within the year of £44,734,624 giving a deficit of £6,029,520 on net current liabilities (ie debts were more than assets)

And when creditors falling due after more than one year were also included of £180,134,058.

Giving a total trading position at the time Anderson took over the club with Holdsworth of £186,163,578 more liabilities than assets!!!

It is there in black and white in the AUDITED PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS.

It couldn't be any clearer ffs!

But you know best - or think you do.


Serious question, did you think the £44,734,624 was actually the sum of assets Anderson had available to him - the £45m you kept mentioning?  I bet that's what you have done isn't it????  You've thought the fixed asset total plus the current asset total was shown as £45m.

Hahahaha!!!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] See page 8.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I'm not being a 'told you so' nor actually believing all is as good as it appears to be but at least let us have a laugh at someone who thinks (probably believes too) that he is smarter than the rest of us, when he clearly has got stuff completely and utterly wrong after telling us otherwise, abusively too, for the last few years.

So you've seen the accounts then seeing that's the only possible way you'd know if I got anything wrong? Correction: suspected anything was wrong.

Or are you using the same crystal ball that tells you what I think?

Did we have £45m of assets more than debts when Ken took over - NO, we actually had £186 debt more than assets.

Have we been made bankrupt - NO, the clubs been sold with all the loans and associated charges to be removed.

Which statement/s do you not find factual?

Also I'm still waiting for the links to all these "multiple chat forums" you tell me I've been crowing on.

Apart from the obvious fact that at the time of writing the club WAS facing bankruptcy. Here's Ken's first published accounts. He was appointed Director in March 2016 and these accounts are to June 2016. Look like assets to me....

I can't view whatever it was you were trying to show.

Please find however a link to the clubs published accounts up to the 30th June 2016, by clicking on the pf against the entry for the 25th July, 2017.

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

If you then turn to page 7, you will see that it is reported that fixed and current assets amounted to £32,854,410 and £5,850,694 respectively.

However the liabilities show that there were creditors falling due within the year of £44,734,624 giving a deficit of £6,029,520 on net current liabilities (ie debts were more than assets)

And when creditors falling due after more than one year were also included of £180,134,058.

Giving a total trading position at the time Anderson took over the club with Holdsworth of £186,163,578 more liabilities than assets!!!

It is there in black and white in the AUDITED PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS.

It couldn't be any clearer ffs!

But you know best - or think you do.


Serious question, did you think the £44,734,624 was actually the sum of assets Anderson had available to him - the £45m you kept mentioning?  I bet that's what you have done isn't it????  You've thought the fixed asset total plus the current asset total was shown as £45m.

Hahahaha!!!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] See page 8.

I'd already answered your question in the other thread you posted it in - so I've cut and pasted it to here -

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:BTW [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Nice move locking the thread though.

What the hell you talking about you nutjob???

The thread isn't locked and never has been and page 8 (which doesn't display from your link) - shows the Statement of Charges in Equity for the accounts ending 30th June as follows -

Share Capital - £123,750
Share Premium Account - £206,626
Capital Redemption Reserve - £31,418
Other Reserves - £25,347

Totalling - £387,141

Is that what you consider lots of assets then???

Even then these trifling amounts HAVE to be used to offset the LOSSES on the Profit and Loss Reserves of £186,550,719 - and thus leaving the Statement of Charges in Equity in DEBIT to the sum of £186,163,578

It's abundantly clear that you can't understand accounts and that you've mistaken the £44,734,624 of creditors falling due within one year as the £45m assets you thought the club had.

Unbelievable really.

No wonder I could not understand what you were talking about half the time and your continual avoidance of answering any questions from me, and several others, as to where these so called assets where, that you kept continually banging on about.

I'll draw a line under it now to save you embarrassing yourself any further.

Unless of course you want too!

I've just read your post on Wways.

You do realise that numbers inside brackets on accounts signify a DEBIT don't you???

Page 8 on the June 16 accounts is basically giving a statement of what equity there in the club - the answer is shown as £186m worth of debt!!!

You do understand that don't you???

Sluffy wrote:I've just read your post on Wways.

You do realise that numbers inside brackets on accounts signify a DEBIT don't you???

Page 8 on the June 16 accounts is basically giving a statement of what equity there in the club - the answer is shown as £186m worth of debt!!!

You do understand that don't you???

Do you understand that you need to look at the right page of the right company in the right period don't you? i.e the group that Anderson bought (Burnden Leisure) at the time he bought it (2016) 
Probably not. It's the one that says total assets less total liabilities = £9,455,000  - and it's not in brackets BTW. 

Accounting 101 - look at the right accounts before opening your big mouth

BTW if you need help understanding the difference between a Balance Sheet (value of a business at a particular point in time) and P&L (trading activity over the reported period) and CFF (cash in and out during that period) ask someone else.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I've just read your post on Wways.

You do realise that numbers inside brackets on accounts signify a DEBIT don't you???

Page 8 on the June 16 accounts is basically giving a statement of what equity there in the club - the answer is shown as £186m worth of debt!!!

You do understand that don't you???

Do you understand that you need to look at the right page of the right company in the right period don't you? i.e the group that Anderson bought (Burnden Leisure) at the time he bought it (2016) 
Probably not. It's the one that says total assets less total liabilities = £9,455,000  - and it's not in brackets BTW. 

Accounting 101 - look at the right accounts before opening your big mouth

BTW if you need help understanding the difference between a Balance Sheet (value of a business at a particular point in time) and P&L (trading activity over the reported period) and CFF (cash in and out during that period) ask someone else.

OK, again you are posting in two places - so here is my reply to you from the other thread -

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Can someone with an accounting background please redirect this moron to the correct page. Preferably in the correct year. And possibly even to the correct company?

It's just that if I do it, he'll probably put up Carr's Pasties accounts and then lecture me about it.

Ok, you aren't talking about the club accounts, you are talking about Burnden Leisure's accounts - ok let's see if we can find your £45m worth of assets there then shall we?

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

Page 8 Group Balance Sheet

Fixed Assets £40,956,000 plus Current Assets £8,015,000 totalling £48,971,000

Less Creditors falling due within one year £39,516,000

Leaving Total Assets less Total liabilities in credit of £9,455,000

BUT provision as to be made for Creditors amounts falling due after more than one year of £9,840,000

Showing net LIABILITIES of £385,000

It's there in black and white and the that amount (liabilities exceed all assets to the tune of) £385,000 is what both Dean Holdsworth and Ken Anderson signed for at the bottom of the page!!!

There's a massive black hole of debt of £186m in the club itself and a further half million (£385,000) in the parent company - and you still seem to believe somehow there were assets available to Ken/DH at the time of the take over.

There wasn't.

I'm not saying it, the clubs accountants and auditors are saying it!!!

Are you on drugs or something because you seem to be in complete denial about the facts???

Where do you believe these £45m assets you have been banging on about are in the books because they are clearly not showing in the 2016 accounts for the club or Burnden Leisure?

As I say above, go back to page 8 and look again at the bottom line as to what Ken and Dean signed off for.

Was it for assets total for £9,455,000 as you seem to want to claim, or was it for LIABILITIES of £385,000 - which does happen to be shown in brackets?

Well fancy that being so!

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I've just read your post on Wways.

You do realise that numbers inside brackets on accounts signify a DEBIT don't you???

Page 8 on the June 16 accounts is basically giving a statement of what equity there in the club - the answer is shown as £186m worth of debt!!!

You do understand that don't you???

Do you understand that you need to look at the right page of the right company in the right period don't you? i.e the group that Anderson bought (Burnden Leisure) at the time he bought it (2016) 
Probably not. It's the one that says total assets less total liabilities = £9,455,000  - and it's not in brackets BTW. 

Accounting 101 - look at the right accounts before opening your big mouth

BTW if you need help understanding the difference between a Balance Sheet (value of a business at a particular point in time) and P&L (trading activity over the reported period) and CFF (cash in and out during that period) ask someone else.

OK, again you are posting in two places - so here is my reply to you from the other thread -

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Can someone with an accounting background please redirect this moron to the correct page. Preferably in the correct year. And possibly even to the correct company?

It's just that if I do it, he'll probably put up Carr's Pasties accounts and then lecture me about it.

Ok, you aren't talking about the club accounts, you are talking about Burnden Leisure's accounts - ok let's see if we can find your £45m worth of assets there then shall we?

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

Page 8 Group Balance Sheet

Fixed Assets £40,956,000 plus Current Assets £8,015,000 totalling £48,971,000

Less Creditors falling due within one year £39,516,000

Leaving Total Assets less Total liabilities in credit of £9,455,000

BUT provision as to be made for Creditors amounts falling due after more than one year of £9,840,000

Showing net LIABILITIES of £385,000

It's there in black and white and the that amount (liabilities exceed all assets to the tune of) £385,000 is what both Dean Holdsworth and Ken Anderson signed for at the bottom of the page!!!

There's a massive black hole of debt of £186m in the club itself and a further half million (£385,000) in the parent company - and you still seem to believe somehow there were assets available to Ken/DH at the time of the take over.

There wasn't.

I'm not saying it, the clubs accountants and auditors are saying it!!!

Are you on drugs or something because you seem to be in complete denial about the facts???

Where do you believe these £45m assets you have been banging on about are in the books because they are clearly not showing in the 2016 accounts for the club or Burnden Leisure?

As I say above, go back to page 8 and look again at the bottom line as to what Ken and Dean signed off for.

Was it for assets total for £9,455,000 as you seem to want to claim, or was it for LIABILITIES of £385,000 - which does happen to be shown in brackets?

Well fancy that being so!

So even taking account of future liabilities there is a figure of £385k which chimes with ED's statement when he wrote off the debt before Anderson arrived that "the new owner who buys Bolton Wanderers will be relatively debt free, with only small loan on the hotel still needing to be paid."




On what planet then, does having assets and a small future debt amount to the £231 million and no assets lie you've been spreading around?


Man up and accept the fact that you've been lying all along because you desperately want to appear as an authority on these matters, when in reality you're just a sad little muppet.

wanderlust wrote:
On what planet then, does having assets and a small future debt amount to the £231 million and no assets lie you've been spreading around?


Man up and accept the fact that you've been lying all along because you desperately want to appear as an authority on these matters, when in reality you're just a sad little muppet.

Look this has got to stop.

I don't need to lie over fuck all on an internet forum like a certain individual.

You posted up that Anderson took on assets of £45m when he took over the club.

An accountant with many years experience posted two links to you from the accounts of the club and Burnden Leisure and said that they would "comprehensively contradict you".

You (being you) replied by saying the assets he inherited was shown to be  £9.4m then - he replied "No it wasn't. BWFC didn't have net assets when Anderson and Holdsworth took over. It had net liabilities of £186million at 30 June 2016 which by 30 June 2017 had turned into net assets of £7.3m as a result of Eddie's loan write offs".

You obviously knew better than a man who has spent his entire adult life working in accountancy and posted him a screen shot of the Burnden Leisure Balance Sheet for the June 2017 accounts (Note not the June 2016 accounts you were originally talking about!) to tell him he was misunderstanding your point.

He replied that you were not only looking at Group Balance Sheet but you had completely missed off the creditors due in more than one year.

To which you replied "That's right I am" to which I assume he had taken it as an admission of your mistake or that he was wasting his lifetime of skills and knowledge trying to put you straight.

With your post last night on Wways stating that this respected real life accountant was WRONG in what he had been saying to you, it was clear that you couldn't be told anything - you it seems know better than everyone else.

You have tried to tell a highly respected accountant that Anderson took on a club with £45m in assets over liabilities - to which the accountant (and later myself on here yesterday) proved by reference to the actual accounts that the true and real position at the time Anderson took on the club was that of £186m liabilities more than assets - that is a discrepancy of what you claimed - whether you like it or not - of £231m.

I have no idea why you want to continually be denying factual evidence just to further your own agenda and not to be seen as being wrong.  I don't know if it is because you feel can't lose face, you consider yourself too macho to be told anything, or you have some sort of personal issues - but this behaviour simply can not go on - when clearly you are the one in denial about the facts and the reality of the situation as explained to you by someone who is a highly regarded, qualified, and vastly experienced specialist in the field of accountancy.

There's just no point to it really is there?

We've warned you about your abuse before and clearly you haven't wished to hear it, despite a small ban, so have a little longer break and maybe post abuse at the mods and Admin over on Wways like you do here and see how long they will put up with it.

How long are you banned for then Sluffy? You are just as bad at the name calling.

So he's been banned for something he may have said on another site?

The mods need to decide whether this is Bolton Nuts or Wanderers Ways.

I agree with Norpig, they're as bad as each other.

Natasha Whittam wrote:So he's been banned for something he may have said on another site?

The mods need to decide whether this is Bolton Nuts or Wanderers Ways.

I agree with Norpig, they're as bad as each other.

I didn't bring the argument to Nuts - he did.

He wouldn't let it drop even when I offered to draw a line under it.

He just went on and on and on, claiming amongst other things I was locking threads and telling lies, plus the ongoing abuse.

It wasn't going to end, it was never going to end because he didn't want it too.

It's been going on for three years now.

Anderson has gone, we've got a new owner and he still wants to argue the toss over something that happened when Anderson first took over the club and which he is unequivocally wrong about.

It has to end.

It's not good for anybody for it to continue, it's killed the site.

If you, Norpig or anyone else doesn't want to remain here because I've stopped the nonsense, then that's your choice.

No doubt we will be deathly quiet from now through summer but it is better than the toxic atmosphere that now constantly pervades the site.

Nuts will continue with or without Wanderlust.

If you want to post on it and bring the laughs back once again, great, if not then thanks for all you've done but we simply can't move the forum on with all the senseless, abusive and utterly pointless arguments that have ruined the site and are still continuing to bring it down.

Hopefully next season will be a new beginning for both the club and Nuts.

Then again maybe not.

Toxic only between you and Lusty, no one else Sluffy 

This place is turning into a dictatorship, you'd rather have yes men agreeing with you and the site being deathly quiet as you put it than letting people have a healthy debate. 
It takes two to tango sluffy, you have been as bad as name calling (moonman etc) and throwing around insults as Lusty and BOTH of you are equally to blame for the tripe we all have to wade through on here because neither of you can let it drop and be seen as the one in the wrong.