BREAKING: DEALS OFF

Leeds_Trotter wrote:The club is in an absolute mess. I guess Ken wasn't lying when he said he was putting money in to keep the club afloat and pay wages.

Do any championship clubs make a profit? From what I’ve heard no, if that is the case every owner must be putting their hand in their pockets.

Sluffy wrote:

BoltonTillIDie wrote:Ken also decides what happens with any revenue we receive.  What bills are paid and not paid.

Not sure what you are saying here?

At the moment the clubs account are frozen by the courts because of the outstanding Winding up petition.  No monies can be paid out from them without seeking legal permission first.

Under Liquidation the officially appointed Liquidator runs the business.

So in both cases Ken has no say in what is paid and to whom since the date of the first petition some seven or eight weeks ago (or whatever it actually is).

Could he not pay HMRC the unpaid taxes?

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

BoltonTillIDie wrote:Ken also decides what happens with any revenue we receive.  What bills are paid and not paid.

Not sure what you are saying here?

At the moment the clubs account are frozen by the courts because of the outstanding Winding up petition.  No monies can be paid out from them without seeking legal permission first.

Under Liquidation the officially appointed Liquidator runs the business.

So in both cases Ken has no say in what is paid and to whom since the date of the first petition some seven or eight weeks ago (or whatever it actually is).

Could he not pay HMRC the unpaid taxes?

Yes, the club could always apply for a 'Variation' Order and pay HMRC in full from their accounts at any time whilst the accounts have been frozen.

Similarly I would imagine Anderson could have paid the debt from his own pocket.

I would imagine (on paper at least) that it was Paul Aldridge who would ultimately be the one responsible to sign off payments (or not!) from the club in his role at the club (even through he is employed as a consultant rather than as an employee) and not Anderson who pays others to do his bidding.

No doubt Anderson pulled the strings but he certainly wouldn't be the one at the coal face doing the dirty work.

Not meaning to be a dick, but he does have a say in what is paid to who then?

T.R.O.Y wrote:Not meaning to be a dick, but he does have a say in what is paid to who then?

I would think that leading up to the accounts being frozen it was more a matter of allocating payment of what funds were available on ensuring that the business continued to trade/survive, rather than any personal view that I won't pay X but will pay Y because I like him more.

I don’t know anything about finance, so could be way off. But the suggestion was Ken can’t pay any bills as the accounts are frozen, my point is that if he pays HMRC then that removes the winding up order and he can deal with the rest of the creditors however he wishes?

Which ultimately means he does have control over who is paid.

Again, I don’t have a clue l though.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I don’t know anything about finance, so could be way off. But the suggestion was Ken can’t pay any bills as the accounts are frozen, my point is that if he pays HMRC then that removes the winding up order and he can deal with the rest of the creditors however he wishes?

Which ultimately means he does have control over who is paid.

Again, I don’t have a clue l though.

The club doesn't have enough money to pay off the winder - otherwise it would have done so.  If it had and deliberately hadn't paid then the judge at the court hearing would have appointed an official receiver to take charge of the business and do so.

The Winder court having authorised the bank accounts to be frozen (on receipt of the petition from the creditor) would know if the club was in a position to settle the debt but was deliberately not doing so.

Ken could pay off the winder from his own personal wealth but he certainly isn't legally required to.

Limited companies are deliberately established to ring fence their operation as a separate legal entity away from those that own it.

Limited companies are owned by the shareholders of it. 

Put simply no one would ever buy shares and invest in any company if they had unlimited liability in doing so - ie they could be personally financially ruined if things went wrong.  So the concept of 'limited' liability was born and why trade and commerce as we know it today, exists.

Any limited company stands or falls on its own two feet.

If the company has a philanthropic owner who wants to plug financial black holes that the company has, then that's down to him.

If they haven't then they find themselves in the position we are - namely the club appears to now be insolvent - and as such needs urgent inwards investment (ie a sale to a new owner) or to be put out of its misery (ie be liquidated).

No matter what anybody thinks is right, moral, fair or whatever words and meaning they believe best describes Anderson and him not putting any of his own wealth into the business - in law he is quite within his rights not to do so.

So if the company hasn't enough money in its bank account to pay the winder, then the only options left open is that someone buys the club and clears the debt (that's the reason the courts postponed judgement twice so far) or that no one ultimately steps forward to take it on in which case the club will be liquidated and creditors settled from whatever funds are left when everything as been sold off.

Thanks. So Ken does have control over who’s paid next. He may not be legally responsible, but in my view he has a moral obligation to pay the debts incurred under his tenure if he can. Same for any business owner.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Thanks. So Ken does have control over who’s paid next. He may not be legally responsible, but in my view he has a moral obligation to pay the debts incurred under his tenure if he can. Same for any business owner.

No Troy, at this moment in time Ken can't make any decisions about who gets paid unless he does it from his own personal pocket. The club's accounts and assets are all frozen and can't be accessed by anybody unless the court first permits it.

It's entirely possible (in my view likely) that Ken simply doesn't have the personal resources necessary to pay off HMRC and it seems pretty clear the club doesn't have it either since they would have paid it already if they could.

Basically Ken could decide to pay the bills from his own accounts if he had the finances to do it but as sluffy says he's not obliged to do so nor frankly can I say I would expect him to especially given the amount of vitriol that's been coming his way from all corners over the last few months in particular. As to Bassini benefiting from liquidation how could he? He owns no assets in the club, has no money in the club and given his monumental failure to provide even basic information to the EFL about his ability to fund it I can't see any way they would even consider allowing him to own a newco or buy us out of admin.

I don’t think the point I’m making is complex. He could pay HMRC if he wanted to, then be free to pay anyone he wants. The notion his hands are tied is nonsense, he’s tied them himself.

He’s chosen not to put another penny in and we’ll pay the price for that. If he thought he could run a Championship club and make a profit he’s incredibly naive.

Having run up the bills under his tenure I’d expect him to pay them, as I would any business owner - and as he promised the EFL. If you think he’s undeserving of vitriol given the state he’s left the club in you’re on another planet.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I don’t think the point I’m making is complex. He could pay HMRC if he wanted to, then be free to pay anyone he wants. The notion his hands are tied is nonsense, he’s tied them himself.

He’s chosen not to put another penny in and we’ll pay the price for that. If he thought he could run a Championship club and make a profit he’s incredibly naive.

Having run up the bills under his tenure I’d expect him to pay them, as I would any business owner - and as he promised the EFL. If you think he’s undeserving of vitriol given the state he’s left the club in you’re on another planet.

I don't recall him promising the EFL?

I believe the criteria for passing the EFL's Fit and Proper Person includes the requirement to prove there are the required resources to run the club for their first two years of their ownership but this is his third year of ownership.

Similarly he did state that he would pay the February players wages out of his own pocket - which unless somebody can point me to facts otherwise - I believe he did.

You are fully entitled to your opinion and belief in what he should do (in fact I agree with you) but the simple fact of the matter is that he is not legally required to do so - and thus by simply following the law isn't implying his hands are tied or not - it is irrelevant in as much he doesn't have to do it - and he isn't - that is his right not to, no matter what you, me or anyone else thinks.

People somehow seem not to 'get' that 'doing the right thing' and the 'legal requirements' applying to a situation are not necessarily one and the same thing.

That's what having 'limited' liability is all about.

One could even argue that if he had 'done the right thing' all along we might well have hit this financial wall which we have much earlier on in the season.

One major thing to note though is that if Anderson being the Director of a 'limited' company is not protected from 'total' liability if it is found that he has acted illegally in bringing the club to its knees (or worse).  

If that was the case his creditors would have the right to claim on his personal wealth.

Sluffy wrote:People somehow seem not to 'get' that 'doing the right thing' and the 'legal requirements' applying to a situation are not necessarily one and the same thing.

That comment alone shows just how little you know about being a football fan.

I think everyone understands legal requirements and doing the right thing are different. But as I’ve said before fans are entitled to be pissed off at Ken regardless of what side of the law he’s on. He’s overseen this shambles, the fans aren’t going to be excusing him for it.

Harvey was in the press in February giving assurances KA had funding to last the season. That must have come front Anderson.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I think everyone understands legal requirements and doing the right thing are different. But as I’ve said before fans are entitled to be pissed off at Ken regardless of what side of the law he’s on. He’s overseen this shambles, the fans aren’t going to be excusing him for it.

Harvey was in the press in February giving assurances KA had funding to last the season. That must have come front Anderson.

Your key word there is 'overseen'.

If he has 'caused' the shambles, then fair comment  but what if it is simply that the club has once again cost more to run than money it receives (apparently the £6m from Madine give us a small surplus on trading since the first time in how many years?) and Anderson has done as much as he could to keep it solvent without funding it personally himself?

Part of keeping it solvent may even have meant taking advances on future income such as Season Tickets or EFL payments - not good but nothing illegal in doing so.

Also and to be pedantic, the financial season doesn't finish when the last match is played but at the end of July.  Maybe Anderson did have enough money scheduled to keep the club going until next season but the winder petition and the freezing of the bank accounts have now prevented that from happening?

All we've got to go on is Harvey's word and at the end of the day he is the current Chairman of the EFL.

If he can't be trusted then there's no hope for football being run properly is there?

Then he was naive to take over a Championship club and think it could be self sufficient. My best guess is he gambled on us, never having the wealth to make it work but hoping to be able to flip the club for a profit quickly. All the while selling what he could as he went to keep things ticking over and messing creditors about to keep things as tight as possible. He’s come away with his ‘consultancy fees’ and we’re in the worst situation any club has been in my memory - even pompey never forfeit a game.

Don’t understand your point on Harvey to be honest, he’s obviously been shown enough in February to believe we can last out the season. That information is only coming from one place, given Anderson’s record of bald face lies I think it’s safe to assume he’s blagged it again.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Then he was naive to take over a Championship club and think it could be self sufficient. My best guess is he gambled on us, never having the wealth to make it work but hoping to be able to flip the club for a profit quickly. All the while selling what he could as he went to keep things ticking over and messing creditors about to keep things as tight as possible. He’s come away with his ‘consultancy fees’ and we’re in the worst situation any club has been in my memory - even pompey never forfeit a game.

Don’t understand your point on Harvey to be honest, he’s obviously been shown enough in February to believe we can last out the season. That information is only coming from one place, given Anderson’s record of bald face lies I think it’s safe to assume he’s blagged it again.

Taking Harvey first, if you were the head of the EFL and were going to say something publicly and on record, wouldn't you have the facts you were going to state thoroughly checked out by a relevant professional employee/contractor of your organisation first?

I know I would, I simply would not accept things at face value - if for no other reason than if they don't check out you know you will be having further issues to deal with from that Chairman and club in weeks to come.

If you weren't certain that what you were going to say at the time of the interview then simply don't say them and if pushed be honest and say their ability to financially complete the season are still subject to and on-going analysis and we at the EFL will work closely with BWFC to see that they are able to do so (or words to that effect).

Maybe Harvey was assured by his own professional advisors that BWFC were financially able to see out the season, if so either the advisors are incompetent, Anderson's done a runner with the money, or something has stopped the process from happening.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the club accounts being frozen rather than the other options.

Of course Harvey could simply have been lying and made things up.

As for your other point who knows where the truth lies?

One thing we were told at the time though was that Holdsworth was brining £5m to the table, with Anderson brining a further £2.5m.  The thing is though did Anderson KNOW where Holdsworth's £5m was ultimately coming from?

If he believed like I certainly did, that the £5m was NEW money coming into the club then he must have been shocked to find out that in fact it was FROM the club (a loan secured against existing assets).

He might have thought he was taking on a club with say £20m worth of real debt (I can't remember the true figure and can't be arsed to research it now) and Deano was brining in £5m to take the club forward but instead found out that in fact he was actually taking on a club with a £25m debt and nothing to take it forward other than his personal money - a turn around of £10m from what he thought he had bought into!!!

Not only that but if he put his £2.5m (or any further amounts) it was HIM covering all the costs yet he had a 'partner' taking half the takings - yet never actually putting in a penny of any new money, let alone from Holdsworth or his company himself!!!

I can't remember the figures now but Holdsworth certainly took out of the club over £1m for the year he was here from payments of employment (Head of Football, or whatever his title was), pay-off to leave, and sale of part of his ownership shares.  Non of this has ever been reported on by Iles although I know all the relevant information has been made known to him!

Funny that from an esteemed journalist who doesn't believe himself to be biased in his reporting in any way!

Any how I digress.

The upshot of all of this is, is that if his plan was to quickly flip the club for a profit (which seemed a reasonable plan at the time) it was thwarted from day one in having a partner who took £1m out of it, took over a year to manoeuvre him out of the club, and during that time found not only that he was £5m short of what he believed Holdsworth was brining to the club but a further £5m down on Holdsworth unbelievable BM loan secured against club assets that he seemingly had no initial knowledge of.

Therefore from a quick intended sale it's taken him two years to sort out Holdsworth involvement and in which time the debts of the club had risen, making it less profitable for him to sell.

Maybe he has since screwed the club but I'm guessing that wasn't his initial intent on taking over the club and hence why he never had the plans or the money to be here as long as he has, and thus never really fit in the role of a football club owner, in which he has found himself three years later.

His plan no doubt was to flip it within the year particularly if he got promotion back to the Championship within that time, with him and Holdsworth making something of a financial killing for simply turning the club around.

Didn't work out that way though did it - but if not, is that all really down to Anderson alone?

I think not.

Lot to read there, but essentially there’s no argument you’ve posed that disproves what we know:

1. Harvey’s assurances the club had enough money must have come from Anderson.
2. Anderson was (at best) naive to think he could run the club at a profit.
3. Anderson could (in spite of your earlier post) unfreeze the clubs accounts should he wish to.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Then he was naive to take over a Championship club and think it could be self sufficient. My best guess is he gambled on us, never having the wealth to make it work but hoping to be able to flip the club for a profit quickly. All the while selling what he could as he went to keep things ticking over and messing creditors about to keep things as tight as possible. He’s come away with his ‘consultancy fees’ and we’re in the worst situation any club has been in my memory - even pompey never forfeit a game.

Don’t understand your point on Harvey to be honest, he’s obviously been shown enough in February to believe we can last out the season. That information is only coming from one place, given Anderson’s record of bald face lies I think it’s safe to assume he’s blagged it again.

Taking Harvey first, if you were the head of the EFL and were going to say something publicly and on record, wouldn't you have the facts you were going to state thoroughly checked out by a relevant professional employee/contractor of your organisation first?

I know I would, I simply would not accept things at face value - if for no other reason than if they don't check out you know you will be having further issues to deal with from that Chairman and club in weeks to come.

If you weren't certain that what you were going to say at the time of the interview then simply don't say them and if pushed be honest and say their ability to financially complete the season are still subject to and on-going analysis and we at the EFL will work closely with BWFC to see that they are able to do so (or words to that effect).

Maybe Harvey was assured by his own professional advisors that BWFC were financially able to see out the season, if so either the advisors are incompetent, Anderson's done a runner with the money, or something has stopped the process from happening.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the club accounts being frozen rather than the other options.

Of course Harvey could simply have been lying and made things up.

As for your other point who knows where the truth lies?

One thing we were told at the time though was that Holdsworth was brining £5m to the table, with Anderson brining a further £2.5m.  The thing is though did Anderson KNOW where Holdsworth's £5m was ultimately coming from?

If he believed like I certainly did, that the £5m was NEW money coming into the club then he must have been shocked to find out that in fact it was FROM the club (a loan secured against existing assets).

He might have thought he was taking on a club with say £20m worth of real debt (I can't remember the true figure and can't be arsed to research it now) and Deano was brining in £5m to take the club forward but instead found out that in fact he was actually taking on a club with a £25m debt and nothing to take it forward other than his personal money - a turn around of £10m from what he thought he had bought into!!!

Not only that but if he put his £2.5m (or any further amounts) it was HIM covering all the costs yet he had a 'partner' taking half the takings - yet never actually putting in a penny of any new money, let alone from Holdsworth or his company himself!!!

I can't remember the figures now but Holdsworth certainly took out of the club over £1m for the year he was here from payments of employment (Head of Football, or whatever his title was), pay-off to leave, and sale of part of his ownership shares.  Non of this has ever been reported on by Iles although I know all the relevant information has been made known to him!

Funny that from an esteemed journalist who doesn't believe himself to be biased in his reporting in any way!

Any how I digress.

The upshot of all of this is, is that if his plan was to quickly flip the club for a profit (which seemed a reasonable plan at the time) it was thwarted from day one in having a partner who took £1m out of it, took over a year to manoeuvre him out of the club, and during that time found not only that he was £5m short of what he believed Holdsworth was brining to the club but a further £5m down on Holdsworth unbelievable BM loan secured against club assets that he seemingly had no initial knowledge of.

Therefore from a quick intended sale it's taken him two years to sort out Holdsworth involvement and in which time the debts of the club had risen, making it less profitable for him to sell.

Maybe he has since screwed the club but I'm guessing that wasn't his initial intent on taking over the club and hence why he never had the plans or the money to be here as long as he has, and thus never really fit in the role of a football club owner, in which he has found himself three years later.

His plan no doubt was to flip it within the year particularly if he got promotion back to the Championship within that time, with him and Holdsworth making something of a financial killing for simply turning the club around.

Didn't work out that way though did it - but if not, is that all really down to Anderson alone?

I think not.

You left out the onerous interest that BluMarble was charging DeanO who then passed that along to KA.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Lot to read there, but essentially there’s no argument you’ve posed that disproves what we know:

1. Harvey’s assurances the club had enough money must have come from Anderson.
2. Anderson was (at best) naive to think he could run the club at a profit.
3. Anderson could (in spite of your earlier post) unfreeze the clubs accounts should he wish to.

I wasn't attempting to argue, just state alternatives you simply don't wish to consider namely -

1 - Harvey may well have been telling the truth but circumstances could have changed due to the accounts being frozen to permit them to happen.
2 - Anderson had in my opinion, no intent of running the club, merely to turn it around and sell it as quickly as he could and probably within a season at the most if he could but the unfolding events from day one with the reveal that Holdsworth had not put any new money into the club scuppered that plan and led to at least a two year stay for him whilst he bought out Holdsworth and sorted out the disastrous BluMarble loan.
3 - Anderson may wish to do lots of things but needlessly pouring his family's life savings into a black hole of a football club that has running costs significantly higher than annual turnover would understandably be low on his list of things to do.

So would it be for all of us.  I certainly wouldn't bankrupt myself and see my family on the street just to pay a group of millionaires their last month or two's wages, when knowing that they were going to get paid in full by other means anyway!

If you were to be prepared to make your love ones suffer and your children's future taken away from them  just to honour your conviction over a matter of principle and morals, to a group of people who had other provision to be paid their tens of thousands in full anyway, then you are far better man than I.

Or a fantasist who has no idea of realism and almost certainly someone who is childless, as no father would needlessly harm their own kids and their future (unless they are a sicko to start off with).

I'm no longer playing your never ending game of argument for argument sake, so feel free to have whatever pop you want to have at me as I am no longer going to bite.

It's clear to anyone with even a modicum of business acumen that Ken Anderson was never in this for the long haul. He intended simply to balance the books in partnership with Dean Holdsworth then sell the club on for whatever profit he could make. I for one would not have begrudged him a penny of that profit had it gone that way. However with BluMarble's franly usurious interest rate and Dean's 'consultancy fee' it left hm in a very deep hole from day one.

Even then Ken might have got out from under had he found a serious buyer quickly but the two that had the money didn't like what they saw in due diligence so pulled out and the rumour is that there were several interested parties but none of them had the funds (or were unwilling to prove they did) so Ken was left holding the bag so to speak.

Certainly he hasn't helped himself in a PR or moral sense but I'm going to repeat my earlier question. If you were taking the kind of hammering he's had from the media, the fans and all sorts of buffoons like Bassini and everyone wanted you out would you use your own personal money to keep things running? Especially when you know you aren't ever likely to get more than a fraction of it back?

Chairmen today are NOT football fans for the most part. They're businessmen and when a football club is losing money every week like ours there comes a point where any businessman is going to say "This thing's a loser so I'm only going to put in what I'm legally obliged to put in."

Lest we forget, Ed Davies did exactly that and if you want to blame someone for the current mess perhaps we should ask what he and Phil Gartside did to prove Dean in particular had the money he said he had. Or is it possible they didn't care and just wanted out now we were no longer in the top flight or getting parachute payments?