OFFICIAL - Bolton up for sale for £25 million

rammywhite wrote:That sounds expensive.
Last season I paid £260 at Bolton- that's after a senior citizens discount

Bolton only have 8 players. They should be paying you.

rammywhite wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:LPP, I know he chose not to pay the players because he said so himself. Something along the lines of “I’m not putting any more money into the club because the fans don’t like me” the pathetic dweeb.

Sluffy the Buffoon..KA was the sole owner, of course it was his responsibility to fund the club. He’s a scumbag that has run bwfc into the ground.

Boggers, KA was NEVER the sole owner of the club. It was and remains a limited company. That means there must, by law be at least 3 shareholders. A sole tradership is an entirely different legal entity. In point of fact Ken was the majority shareholder but that doesn't make him personally liable for the club's debts.

Sluffy has pointed out to you many times that Ken Anderson is not and never was Bolton Wanderers Football Club and is not and never was obliged to pay any of its bills from his own personal pocket. His personal liability just like that of the other shareholders is limited to whatever he initially agreed to put into the business, something he did when he bought us and exceeded when he bought out DH and Sportshield. From that point on he'd met his legal obligations to BWFC and was entitled to keep the rest of his money in his pocket.

You mention when he said he wasn't putting any more money into the club because the fans wanted him out. Do you seriously blame him for that? If I was chairman of a club where the fans were calling me a criminal and scum and posting various threats on the internet I'm certain I wouldn't put one penny of my own personal money into it and why should I?

I'm not saying Ken is a saint by any means but you cannot keep saying he's obliged to pay for the club when he isn't. You cannot keep calling him a criminal without proof he's actually broken laws and you can't claim he should have bankrupted himself just because other people think he should.

I love Bolton Wanderers and have for more than forty years but there is no way in Hell I'd risk my own or my family's financial future to keep it afloat. At the end of the day it's a business and when businesses make losses, especially on the scale BWFC has only an idiot would keep throwing their own personal money in there. Whatever else may be said about KA he's not an idiot and he's already done what was legally required of him if not more. None of us have any right to expect anything more from him.

LPP- can I correct a couple of things. A private limited company needs only one shareholder whilst a plc needs a minimum of 2. Limited liability refers not to the amount that a shareholder has put into the company, but to the amount that they have NOT put into the company. Limited liability is limited to the amount a shareholder has not put in up to the nominal value of the shares allocated to them. Thus if the nominal value is £1 and they've paid the £1 in they have no further liability. If they've only paid ( say) 75p for each share then their liability is limited to 25p per share allocated to them.
Boring- but there you are anyway.

Thanks for that rammy. I thought a PRIVATE limited company had to have between 3 and 20 shareholders while a PUBLIC limited company shares were traded on the Stock Exchange. Of course it's been many, many years since I took an Economics class but I seem to remember that a PLC (Private Limited Company) had to have at least 3 shareholders and shares could only be traded with the permission of all the shareholders. For example one of my dad's clients owned a PLC and in order to satisfy some regulation or other his wife held one of a hundred shares and so did his son. It had something to do with the limited liability as I recall. Without them holding a share each he'd have been classed as a sole trader and his personal liability for the company's debts etc would have been unlimited.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:LPP, I know he chose not to pay the players because he said so himself. Something along the lines of “I’m not putting any more money into the club because the fans don’t like me” the pathetic dweeb.

Sluffy the Buffoon..KA was the sole owner, of course it was his responsibility to fund the club. He’s a scumbag that has run bwfc into the ground.

Boggers, KA was NEVER the sole owner of the club. It was and remains a limited company. That means there must, by law be at least 3 shareholders. A sole tradership is an entirely different legal entity. In point of fact Ken was the majority shareholder but that doesn't make him personally liable for the club's debts.

Sluffy has pointed out to you many times that Ken Anderson is not and never was Bolton Wanderers Football Club and is not and never was obliged to pay any of its bills from his own personal pocket. His personal liability just like that of the other shareholders is limited to whatever he initially agreed to put into the business, something he did when he bought us and exceeded when he bought out DH and Sportshield. From that point on he'd met his legal obligations to BWFC and was entitled to keep the rest of his money in his pocket.

You mention when he said he wasn't putting any more money into the club because the fans wanted him out. Do you seriously blame him for that? If I was chairman of a club where the fans were calling me a criminal and scum and posting various threats on the internet I'm certain I wouldn't put one penny of my own personal money into it and why should I?

I'm not saying Ken is a saint by any means but you cannot keep saying he's obliged to pay for the club when he isn't. You cannot keep calling him a criminal without proof he's actually broken laws and you can't claim he should have bankrupted himself just because other people think he should.

I love Bolton Wanderers and have for more than forty years but there is no way in Hell I'd risk my own or my family's financial future to keep it afloat. At the end of the day it's a business and when businesses make losses, especially on the scale BWFC has only an idiot would keep throwing their own personal money in there. Whatever else may be said about KA he's not an idiot and he's already done what was legally required of him if not more. None of us have any right to expect anything more from him.

LPP- can I correct a couple of things. A private limited company needs only one shareholder whilst a plc needs a minimum of 2. Limited liability refers not to the amount that a shareholder has put into the company, but to the amount that they have NOT put into the company. Limited liability is limited to the amount a shareholder has not put in up to the nominal value of the shares allocated to them. Thus if the nominal value is £1 and they've paid the £1 in they have no further liability. If they've only paid ( say) 75p for each share then their liability is limited to 25p per share allocated to them.
Boring- but there you are anyway.

Thanks for that rammy. I thought a PRIVATE limited company had to have between 3 and 20 shareholders while a PUBLIC limited company shares were traded on the Stock Exchange. Of course it's been many, many years since I took an Economics class but I seem to remember that a PLC (Private Limited Company) had to have at least 3 shareholders and shares could only be traded with the permission of all the shareholders. For example one of my dad's clients owned a PLC and in order to satisfy some regulation or other his wife held one of a hundred shares and so did his son. It had something to do with the limited liability as I recall. Without them holding a share each he'd have been classed as a sole trader and his personal liability for the company's debts etc would have been unlimited.

A plc is a public limited company-  but is not necessarily traded on the stock exchange. If you want to be listed on the Stock market then you must be a plc-  but being a plc doesn't mean that you are listed. There are size requirements for it  (a bit boring)but it must have at least two shareholders. A private limited coompny ( such as my own) only needs one shareholder - and only one share in issue. In a private limited company other shareholders have pre -emption rights if one of the shareholders ( presuming there are more than one) wants to sell.

OK rammy. Thanks for the info. But a couple more (probably boring) questions if I may. If there's only one shareholder how is that different from being a sole trader? At what point can a sole trader go to limited liability? (eg is it based on turnover or perhaps number of employees?)

This is an interesting read.

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

MartinBWFC wrote:This is an interesting read.

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

In my opinion it isn't, it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

It does though reinforce two points though
1 - The questionability into why the BM loan was acceptable to the EFL

I strongly suspect that they thought it was 'new' investment into the club and never realised that Holdsworth secured it on the clubs assets instead.

2 - That the club simply ran out of money - costs were in excess of revenue.

Contrary to the widely held view that Anderson 'raped' the club to enrich himself, the reality is that without someone putting their hand in their pocket to keep the club going through their personal wealth, then the inevitable insolvency happened.

Interesting tweets from a Wanderers fan called George Bower:

The BM loan was a short term bridging loan. High costs are normal on very short term & bespoke asset backed loans (which this was). It was supposed to be repaid by Jul-16 when KA injected his equity () and certain assets were sold. At same time KA ejected DH from any influence.

Doing the maths, based on informed estimate of around £150k legal fees, the underlying interest rate was around 8 to 9%. Recovering the legals through the loan over 90 day term pushes the effective cost to 24% per annum.

I’ve seen legal docs that show Anderson was trying to use his own money to loan money to troubled businesses at rates 2 or 3 times the BM rate and taking the shares as security. It was cheaper for him to allow the BM loan to run than use his own money. A leveraged gamble.

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

T.R.O.Y wrote:Interesting tweets from a Wanderers fan called George Bower:

The BM loan was a short term bridging loan. High costs are normal on very short term & bespoke asset backed loans (which this was). It was supposed to be repaid by Jul-16 when KA injected his equity () and certain assets were sold. At same time KA ejected DH from any influence.

Doing the maths, based on informed estimate of around £150k legal fees, the underlying interest rate was around 8 to 9%. Recovering the legals through the loan over 90 day term pushes the effective cost to 24% per annum.

I’ve seen legal docs that show Anderson was trying to use his own money to loan money to troubled businesses at rates 2 or 3 times the BM rate and taking the shares as security. It was cheaper for him to allow the BM loan to run than use his own money. A leveraged gamble.

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

George Bower is a former member of the ST Board and whom I believe to have a good knowledge of financial matters and who I have referred to in the past on here (he even accused me of plagiarism once even though he had on a previous occasion Direct Messaged me on Twitter requesting that I did not quote him as a source when quoting from his tweets. Apparently he told someone I made a grovelling apology to him when I took the time to remind him what he had requested from me previously).

I strongly suspect that he has a massive influence on the financial information that Iles tweets from time to time.

However I don't believe he is an accountant by profession and certainly in the past his comments have been refuted by persons I know to be exceptionally experienced and qualified in that field.

In regards to some of the comments he made in his tweets -

The reports of the take over at the time stated that the deal was for Holdsworth to put in £5m initially at take over with Anderson to find further funds of £2.5m once the £5m was exhausted - below is a statement from the ST itself dated 13th Feb, 2017 which Mr Bower may have even wrote himself -

"Recent local press reports and social media releases from Mr Anderson, as chairman, and Mr Holdsworth in his personal capacity, have thrown some light on the question of how much Mr Anderson has put into the club. Last year, it was reported that Mr Anderson made a commitment of £2.5m initially with a further amount of follow on funding".

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

This being the case does it really match up with the tweets above inferring that Anderson was supposed to putting £5m into clear the BM debt just 16 days after taking over the club?

Also you just don't fix up a £5m (pay day loan) on the fly like that, there would have been an amount of time in which the lender (BM) would take to do his checks to ascertain that there is sufficient and unattached assets to secure the loan on.

Holdsworth was in considerable talks to take on the club with his then partner Michael Collins (who was supposed to me the original money man) when no doubt the BM loan was agreed in principle and left open for a short while - and which was called down on completion of the sale, with only 16 days left on the original agreement (hence the weird settlement date 16 days later).

Anderson came on board with Holdsworth at the last moment and claims he was unaware of the £5m BM deal.

Obviously it is up to anyone to believe that or not - but quite clearly even the ST at the time and some months later never made mention of Anderson accepting/agreeing to put in £5m of new investment just 16 days from coming on board.

So I strongly suggest Mr Bower is misinformed in what he says.

I also take issue of assets being sold within the 16 day period of taking charge by Holdsworth and Anderson in order to settle the BM loan.  All sales had been agreed and authorised by Trevor Birch prior to the change of ownership - namely the car parks, the academy and some of the land.

I'm sure Mr Bower has no interest in what I think though.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:OK rammy. Thanks for the info. But a couple more (probably boring) questions if I may. If there's only one shareholder how is that different from being a sole trader? At what point can a sole trader go to limited liability? (eg is it based on turnover or perhaps number of employees?)

Apologies LPP- I've just seen this after a brief spell in hospital. If you have only one shareholder in terms of trading it makes  very little difference in terms of day to day trading activities. But its about the legal position. A company must submit its accounts to be audited and filed with the Registrar- although 90% of companies (like mine) file very little useful information. If I want to sell my company then all I would do is sell the share(s) and all the assets then belong to the new owner. Also I only pay corporation tax at 19% and I can put a lot of expenses through the company to reduce the tax bill.
A sole trader does not need an audit as they can submit their own accounts and don't need to file anything in the public domain. But its always wise though to have an accountant to draw up your Accounts and submit thm to HMRC. A sole trader is taxed on profits (before any drawings or owners salary) and therefore could be taxed at 20% or the higher rates of 40% or 45%, so its much less tax efficient.
I pay my wife dividends ( she's also a shareholder) and she pays tax of 7.5% on them but they go into our joint private bank account- so there's a substantial tax saving.
Thm difference is all about legal structure and the tax benefits of being a company. Trading wise- there's no difference. A sole trader can become a limited company whenever they choose. Just set up a limited company ( or get someone else to do it for you) and then transfer the business and the assets into the new company. Its really easy. There's a great little tax dodge here as well as when you transfer the business to become a limited company the sole trader can 'sell' the goodwill in the old business and get a tax break on it. But you'll need an accountant to see to all that for you.
 Apologies for the long answer- but it can be complicated

Taking a while this eh?

It's not June 7th yet is it?

rammywhite wrote: I've just seen this after a brief spell in hospital.

We all hope you're are better now.

Football really isn't the be all and end all at the end of the day - like a few nutjobs out there really think!

Keep well.

Hope you are back to good health Rammy!

Sluffy wrote:Football really isn't the be all and end all at the end of the day - like a few nutjobs out there really think!

Define "nutjob".

Hope you are well Rammy, I'd miss your nonsense if you croaked it.

Hope you are okay now Rammy.

I  know how being home feels so good.

Hi rammy. Glad you're home and hope you're on the road to full recovery if you aren't there yet.

I see Bassini is back, wish he would fuck off and leave us alone

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

Tomorrow is the deadline set by the administrators for bids to be in, let's hope this can be sorted quickly and sold to someone with actual money (yes i mean you Bassini)

Norpig wrote:Tomorrow is the deadline set by the administrators for bids to be in, let's hope this can be sorted quickly and sold to someone with actual money (yes i mean you Bassini)

Don't think we'll know anything concrete until the end of the Month, then it'll be a mad signing session, just hope it's not Parkinson that's signing them.