Anderson to take the Hotel?

Interesting!

As I mentioned before secured creditors charged against a specific asset can appoint an Administrator to take possession of that asset on default of their settlement.

Looks to me that Ken and Michael James are going to battle it out for the hotel (both have secured charges set against it which are now in default) because Fildraw have apparently not covered the hotel in their appointment of Administrators!

"Appleton and Miller will take charge of parent company Burnden Leisure Limited and the Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company.

The Whites Hotel does not fall under their control, however, and could be placed into the hands of a separate administrator by one of the Qualifying Floating Charge Holders, local businessman Michael James, or even Anderson himself".

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

Who's cocked up here then? Surely the hotel should be included in any deal to buy the club, stupid to have the 2 separate as the Hotel actually makes money (when it's open of course) doesn't it?

Anderson wouldn't dare show his face if he ended up with it and i hope people would avoid the hotel like the plague. I personally would never use if that slimeball owned it.

I can't see Anderson being allowed to come out of administration as the hotel owner.We've already seen that Anderson doesn't run the hotel competently enough to pay its bills and staff wages on time

Norpig wrote:Who's cocked up here then? Surely the hotel should be included in any deal to buy the club, stupid to have the 2 separate as the Hotel actually makes money (when it's open of course) doesn't it?

Anderson wouldn't dare show his face if he ended up with it and i hope people would avoid the hotel like the plague. I personally would never use if that slimeball owned it.

No cock up - this would have been done deliberately.

It is how Admin works - exactly the same thing was going to happen with BluMarble even though the rest of the business (club, Burnden Leisure,) would have been unaffected at the time.

I keep trying to explain that companies (which the hotel is) are separate legal entities in their own right and thus can be bought, sold and even put into Administration to take ownership of goods on which a loan has been secured against.

Growler wrote:I can't see Anderson being allowed to come out of administration as the hotel owner.We've already seen that Anderson doesn't run the hotel competently enough to pay its bills and staff wages on time

It's not quite like that though.

Anderson is in his rights to claim an asset on which he has a charge over on default of his loan.

Think of it as a finance company sending out the repo men to get possession of a car, or telly, or whatever it is that they've lent someone money to buy who has defaulted on their payments.

More than likely the appointed Administrator would take control of the asset and sell it to a new owner and simply give Anderson (and James) their money out of the process of the sale - but it wouldn't stop Anderson himself buying it as he isn't struck off as a Director or a bankrupt, if he wanted to.

I don't believe he wants to though, I think he simply wants the money (which as far as I know is still owed to Eddie's estate?).

I pointed out on another thread that this might be more complicated than it sounds as the hotel probably doesn't own the buildings which are an integral part of the stadium.
What the charge precisely consists of remains to be seen but it could be over the hotel as a business ( as Sluffy says, a separate legal entity) but if the hotel business doesn't own the buildings ( which might still be part of Burnden Leisure) then they've got a lousy asset. That's a hotel business without any premises. They would need to attempt to either rent or lease the buildings back from Bunden Leisure who might not be willing to play ball with Anderson

rammywhite wrote:I pointed out on another thread that this might be more complicated than it sounds as the hotel probably doesn't own the buildings which are an integral part of the stadium.
What the charge precisely consists of remains to be seen but it could be over the hotel as a business ( as Sluffy says, a separate legal entity) but if the hotel business doesn't own the buildings ( which might still be part of Burnden Leisure) then they've got a lousy asset. That's a hotel business without any premises. They would need to attempt to either rent or lease the buildings back from Bunden Leisure who might not be willing to play ball with Anderson

Thanks for that Rammy.

They way I read the latest accounts for the hotel though (year ended 30th June 2017) Point 9, page 39, Tangible and Fixed Assets, it shows £8.4m for the hotel and £1.7m for plant and equipment, which suggests to me that it does own it's own premises (hence why BM secured against it initially). Am I reading it wrongly perhaps?

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

I suspect Anderson doesn't really wants the hotel at all but would wish the Administrator to sell off the business and get his £5m back that way.

Interesting times though!

Sluffy wrote:

rammywhite wrote:I pointed out on another thread that this might be more complicated than it sounds as the hotel probably doesn't own the buildings which are an integral part of the stadium.
What the charge precisely consists of remains to be seen but it could be over the hotel as a business ( as Sluffy says, a separate legal entity) but if the hotel business doesn't own the buildings ( which might still be part of Burnden Leisure) then they've got a lousy asset. That's a hotel business without any premises. They would need to attempt to either rent or lease the buildings back from Bunden Leisure who might not be willing to play ball with Anderson

Thanks for that Rammy.

They way I read the latest accounts for the hotel though (year ended 30th June 2017) Point 9, page 39, Tangible and Fixed Assets, it shows £8.4m for the hotel and £1.7m for plant and equipment, which suggests to me that it does own it's own premises (hence why BM secured against it initially).  Am I reading it wrongly perhaps?

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

I suspect Anderson doesn't really wants the hotel at all but would wish the Administrator to sell off the business and get his £5m back that way.

Interesting times though!

I'm wrong- it looks like they do own the premises and so the charge might be worth something. I can't really see how it would be a profitable venture though, given its location. If I was the Administrator I would tell him to take it and sell it himself.

My understanding is that the real value of the Hotel is the land it stands on (which is freehold and owned by the hotel) and the fact it has multiple (or did) planning permissions including a potential development as private homes or as it's now termed low cost housing. It's only outline planning permission but it apparently adds real value to the land itself. It could be then that the Hotel is irrelevant to the charge holders, they may already have ideas about knocking it down and building housing on it. That's assuming the planning permits still valid. Would such a thing appear in company accounts? Is planning permission seen as an asset?

luckyPeterpiper wrote:My understanding is that the real value of the Hotel is the land it stands on (which is freehold and owned by the hotel) and the fact it has multiple (or did) planning permissions including a potential development as private homes or as it's now termed low cost housing. It's only outline planning permission but it apparently adds real value to the land itself. It could be then that the Hotel is irrelevant to the charge holders, they may already have ideas about knocking it down and building housing on it. That's assuming the planning permits still valid. Would such a thing appear in company accounts? Is planning permission seen as an asset?

I seriously doubt that they could demolish the hotel without bringing the rest of the stadium down - which of course the owners of the hotel couldn't do without owning the stadium also (and visa versa of course).

So I think the hotel and ground are staying as they are for some time longer yet.

Bolton Whites Hotel set to open its doors once again

THE Bolton Whites Hotel is set to open its doors again on Wednesday.
Customers will be welcomed back from 2pm as the business looks to get back up and running following a chaotic few weeks.

The hotel was forced to close on May 1 after it could no longer guarantee the health and safety of guests and staff due to cashflow problems at the club.
A week later the High Court was notified that the business was being placed into administration, halting a winding-up petition from HMRC.

Hotel manager Suzanne Speak paid tribute to the hard work of her employees and the catering staff which have enabled several events to take place, even with the main business closed.

Now, she is looking forward to welcoming guests back into the building.
“The staff have worked absolutely tirelessly, I cannot praise them highly enough,” she said.

“They have gone above and beyond so that we are able to re-open and get back to normality.

“We’d also like to thank customers, who have been very understanding in such testing times.”

Official confirmation of an administrator has not yet been made but a statement is expected at some stage tomorrow morning.

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

luckyPeterpiper wrote:My understanding is that the real value of the Hotel is the land it stands on (which is freehold and owned by the hotel) and the fact it has multiple (or did) planning permissions including a potential development as private homes or as it's now termed low cost housing. It's only outline planning permission but it apparently adds real value to the land itself. It could be then that the Hotel is irrelevant to the charge holders, they may already have ideas about knocking it down and building housing on it. That's assuming the planning permits still valid. Would such a thing appear in company accounts? Is planning permission seen as an asset?

Several questions there. Firstly planning permission  would be an intangible asset  and would not appear in the Accounts as it doesn't conform to the accounting definition of an asset- something which I won't bore you with.
It would appear in the Accounts if the land is 'in play'  i.e the business is taking active steps to market it. It might just appear otherwise as a Note to the Accounts if there had been discussions about putting it up for sale
I'd like to know how they got planning permission to build on it as the land area is small and its attached to the stadium. It might be that they own part of the car park in front of it- but given that area, the land value is nothing like the £8milion in the Accounts. I am sceptical that the hotel owns the freehold to the land- but I suppose that they might. If its for low cost housing then the value is nothing like £8milion - that could never be recovered.
But things will move quickly now with the Administrator so we won't have to wait long to see what happens to it. If its saleable then the Administrator ( which is a differnt Administration to Burnden Leisure although it could be the same people with different hats on) will offload it as soon as they can as it offers a fairly hefty chunk of cash if they can convert it  to cash. But lets see what the chargeholders say about that.
But again after investigation the Administrator might see a commercial future for the hotel and develop a plan to allow it to trade through and become an independent going concern.
Lots of potential outcomes none of which is certain

It's really interesting, the trouble is we all want it to happen at the speed of light.

Administrators appointed to Bolton Whites Hotel

ADMINISTRATORS have been appointed at the Bolton Whites Hotel as it prepared to open its doors once again.

Andrew Hosking, Sean Bucknall and Michael Kiely, partners at business advisory firm Quantuma, have been appointed joint administrators of Bolton Whites Hotel Limited.

The 125-bedroom hotel, situated within Bolton Wanderers’ University of Bolton Stadium, had ceased to operate on May 1 as the cash-crisis at the club deepened.

Paul Appleton and Asher Miller of David Rubin & partners were appointed as joint administrators of Burnden Leisure Limited and Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company on Monday.

Quantuma partner and joint administrator Andrew Hosking said “The joint administrators will be seeking to resume trading of the hotel at the earliest opportunity. The hotel is an integral part of the club and with the football season having drawn to a close, it is our priority to ensure that operations at the hotel resume and revenues are generated.

“We will be working closely with the joint administrators of Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Club and Burnden Leisure Limited to assist in achieving the optimum outcome for creditors and securing a long-term future for the club.”

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

luckyPeterpiper wrote:My understanding is that the real value of the Hotel is the land it stands on (which is freehold and owned by the hotel) and the fact it has multiple (or did) planning permissions including a potential development as private homes or as it's now termed low cost housing. It's only outline planning permission but it apparently adds real value to the land itself. It could be then that the Hotel is irrelevant to the charge holders, they may already have ideas about knocking it down and building housing on it. That's assuming the planning permits still valid. Would such a thing appear in company accounts? Is planning permission seen as an asset?

You make it sound like another 'Normid' is looming 

gloswhite wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:My understanding is that the real value of the Hotel is the land it stands on (which is freehold and owned by the hotel) and the fact it has multiple (or did) planning permissions including a potential development as private homes or as it's now termed low cost housing. It's only outline planning permission but it apparently adds real value to the land itself. It could be then that the Hotel is irrelevant to the charge holders, they may already have ideas about knocking it down and building housing on it. That's assuming the planning permits still valid. Would such a thing appear in company accounts? Is planning permission seen as an asset?

You make it sound like another 'Normid' is looming 

Stick a Carrs pasties drive through there, it will make a fortune

It does seem weird to me but it looks like the carpark and at least some of the hotel's 'footprint' are on freehold land while most of the stadium itself is on land that's leased. I can't make head or tail of it. As to the planning permissions that's my bad. Apparently it applied to where Burnden Park was. When the club first mooted a move one of the initial plans was to demolish and rebuild a 'New Burnden' on the original site but the Council felt it was impractical due to both the size of the construction itself and the frankly enormous alterations to things like surrounding roads that would be required to allow safe access and proper policing on match days. However, the club (or perhaps ED) put forward a number of different proposals in a bid to keep the ground in Bolton but the Council were adamant that such a site should be on the outskirts not within the town itself. In the end it worked out cheaper to build fresh infrastructure and the shopping centre etc at Horwich Parkway rather than anything that could be done at the alternative sites that were offered.

Bolton Whites Hotel cuts ties with catering partners Heathcote & Co

BOLTON Wanderers have severed ties with catering partners Heathcote & Co after six years.
Notice was given on Monday night that The Bolton Whites Hotel intend to bring catering services in-house as part of a cost-saving exercise.
Twenty-five full and 175 part-time staff based are employed by Heathcote & Co to service hospitality boxes at the stadium, many of which are brought in only for match-days or special events.
The company, who became Wanderers’ official catering partners in 2013, expect that contracts will be picked up by the hotel and that changes will not result in a net loss of jobs.

The 125-bedroom four-star hotel is currently in administration but reopened on May 14 with all previous hotel employees back in situ.
Andrew Hosking, Sean Bucknall and Michael Kiely, partners at business advisory firm Quantuma, were appointed joint administrators of the hotel, and are currently acting independently of Rubin and Partners, who are administrators of the football club.
Partner, Andrew Hosking, said: “The priority of the administrators is to ensure the best outcome for stakeholders.
“We will be working with the management team to assist the hotel to return to short term profitability.

“To assist with this exercise the administrators have scrutinised the existing financial commitments of the hotel. It has become apparent that the existing contract for the provision of catering is not aligned to the objectives of the administrators and as such, the decision has been made to bring the provision of high-quality catering in house in the interest of the hotel and the creditors.”
Paul Heathcote, co-owner of Heathcote & Co, says he is currently seeking legal advice on his position after being told late on Monday that the deal had been ended.
“Late yesterday we were issued with a withdrawal of services notice from Walker Morris solicitors and because it was so late in the day it gave us little time to react,” he told The Bolton News.

“As a consequence we unfortunately were unable to communicate with our people successfully because of the lack of information which was available at the time.
“We believe our staff are being transferred over via TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) to Quantuma who appear to be taking the catering services in-house as far as we can assess.
"Given the national publicity and public gaze the aim of the administrator now must be to make sure that people who have been gainfully employed looking after the business and hotel contract for the last six years have their rights protected. It is unfortunate that no consultation took place. Again, a lack of communication has been sorely evident."
It is understood that the hotel is confident future events and conferences, including the upcoming Rod Stewart concert, can be adequately staffed and catered despite the ongoing issues.

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

This sounds like a great move for the club, apparently we were losing money facilitating the agreement

BoltonTillIDie wrote:This sounds like a great move for the club, apparently we were losing money facilitating the agreement

I wouldn't get too carried away just yet.

What you say does seem to suggest what Anderson had been saying for some time that the Heathcote contract does appear to be loaded heavily in their favour and thus not so good for the hotel (note I deliberately say hotel and not club, I'll try to explain why shortly).

This is backed up from what the Administrator says about it 'not being aligned to the objectives of the Administrators' - which basically recover as much money as they can for the outstanding contractors.

So to me it looks as though Heathcote's contract is above and beyond normal catering contracts of this size, profit margins - or in other words we have been being ripped on this contract from when it was first signed.

I come back to why it is good for the hotel though and not necessarily the club, it is because separate Administrators are dealing with separate assets - one of which is the hotel - and which may be sold off.

Not sure selling off 'clubs' assets such as the hotel is ultimately a good thing but if needs must, there is little other choice.

Fwiw it looks like Anderson told it honestly about how bad this contract really was that he inherited!