Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers News » Keith Hill: I'm happy working with Peter Kenyon

Keith Hill: I'm happy working with Peter Kenyon

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Keith Hill says he is entirely comfortable working within a new system of recruitment at Wanderers.

Former Manchester United and Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon has been working with Bolton’s owners, Football Ventures, to create a more data-driven approach to signing players.

The re-signing of Will Buckley this week added to four other new arrivals – Muhammadu Faal, George Thomason, Ethan Hamilton and Brandon Fleming – with high hopes that more will be on the way before Friday’s deadline.

Hill has a shortlist of players and though time is now ticking down, he says every effort is being made to improve the squad.

“This might be a last four or five-day market but we have done a lot of liaising with Peter Kenyon, put a lot of evidence in front of Peter Kenyon with respect to the players we want to recruit and it’s a question of making sure we can get those deals over the line,” he told The Bolton News.

“You have to be patient as well. There has to be a certain amount of methodology to what we do.”

Explaining the relationship between himself and Kenyon, Hill says the so-called ‘Moneyball’ approach is nothing new to him – and that new arrivals will be tailored to how he wants the team to play.

“We do a lot of work as a staff, that hasn’t changed,” he said.

“I heard a comparison to Moneyball – and I have been using Moneyball since I started managing at 36 years old. I try and stretch the pound, try and stretch the penny.

“We have created our own matrix from the way we want to play. We have designed our own DNA on player recruitment. I have always used the non-league and every club I have been at has always made a financial profit.

“That is the Moneyball system I have used on limited resources.

“You don’t need masses of staff, you need intelligent people who are willing to work hard, simple really.

“We are trying to use the resource of our budget as efficiently as we possibly can so that we don’t go outside it. We are always willing to make money – trade, trade, trade. It’s important when you are working within restrictions that you are willing to trade.

“Moneyball is an illusion. I think if you were to compare it to any football club in Britain I’d definitely go with the Brentford model. I think it’s amazing what they do. But we are still in the same situation with respect to recruitment – myself and David (Flitcroft) are liaising with Peter Kenyon.

“The rest of the work is being done by a lot of people to make sure we get the best people from the list we have – we have a number one, and probably a number 10. And it’s the same whether it’s a central defender, a midfielder. We have a list of players and can we realistically get those players on that list?”

Wanderers already tailor their work to the data taken on the pitch and the training ground and the club plan to expand and improve that in the future, particularly on the medical side.

Hill feels the approach is the right way to go, given the parameters the club will have to work in during a transfer embargo in the next three windows.

“With respect to using data, we always use data,” he said. “We use it to improve players, to measure players on a daily basis, and they are the resources you can work efficiently with in a small group of staff but make sure that the players, the culture and the hard work develops and then you can start measuring it even more.

“From a Moneyball situation, what Bolton do want moving forward is to invest in coaching, developing players, to achieve three-point promotion success, and a succession of saleable assets. That’s a good model but at this moment in time it won’t be to the scale of Brentford.”

Source

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
What a complete load of bollocks Hill states.

"to achieve three-point promotion success' - what do things like this even mean?

Anyway I only post on here to put up this picture which seems to suggest that for whatever reason he is here for that Kenyon is certainly sitting at the top table!


Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
@Sluffy wrote:What a complete load of bollocks Hill states.

"to achieve three-point promotion success' - what do things like this even mean?

Anyway I only post on here to put up this picture which seems to suggest that for whatever reason he is here for that Kenyon is certainly sitting at the top table!


Interesting photo. Sharon looks like someone's pinched her bottom. PK looks like a garden gnome and Emma...... Lets not go there.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Interesting photo. Sharon looks like someone's pinched her bottom. PK looks like a garden gnome and Emma...... Lets not go there.

Listen to Brad Pitt.

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
@Natasha Whittam wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Interesting photo. Sharon looks like someone's pinched her bottom. PK looks like a garden gnome and Emma...... Lets not go there.

Listen to Brad Pitt.
Bless you, Natasha, but it was really the looks on their faces that I was commenting on. Sharon's an attractive lady but, having now looked a bit more at the latest from the administrators, I can well understand how miffed she might be at where her money is going.

Since the BN isn't going to explain anything (what's new?), FV have, it seems, agreed to adopt the name The Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Club and, in order for that to happen, the 1895 company has been renamed BWFC2019 Limited. Its purely cosmetic but still a good idea.

Not sure if its been mentioned anywhere, but its the administrators that have given instructions to pursue bankruptcy proceedings against Bassini.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Thu Jan 30 2020, 15:54; edited 1 time in total

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
@Natasha Whittam wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Interesting photo. Sharon looks like someone's pinched her bottom. PK looks like a garden gnome and Emma...... Lets not go there.

Listen to Brad Pitt.
Bless you, Natasha, but it was really the looks on their faces that I was commenting on. Sharon's an attractive lady but, having now looked a bit more at the latest from the administrators, I can well understand how miffed she might be at where her money is going.

Since the BN is going to explain anything (what's new?), FV have, it seems, agreed to adopt the name The Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Club and, in order for that to happen, the 1895 company has been renamed BWFC2019 Limited. Its purely cosmetic but still a good idea.

Not sure if its been mentioned anywhere, but its the administrators that have given instructions to pursue bankruptcy proceedings against Bassini.

Thank you Bob very interesting.

A couple of other things I noted that I may add,

- The Administrators hold the first charge over FV's assets (presumably until all their fees and expenses have been settled in full)(p3 of the document/page 10 of the filing)).

- They had to chase up the Rugby Football League for payment of the semi-final games (p3)

- The club traded at a loss of £1.1m during Administration (p8) [again emphasising the fact the clubs costs are more than their income as they were pre-Anderson and now post-Anderson]

-FV still owe Warburton £3m and he has a charge against their assets so to Eddies estate for £10.5m (p9/10)

- Anderson received only £237k for full and final payment and all future claims (p10) [and not the £5m that many believed he would from the money Davies loaned him to pay BM - fwiw I continually told people that there were no assets available to secure such a claim on but 'knew' better!].

One thing though I'm not clear about though is Asset Realisation of £2.8m shown as 'Third Party Funds'? I assume this is the money FV (and others?) put in to keep the club solvent during the Admin process (page 2 of 2/page 6 of the filing), in which case I guess the true trading deficit during Admin was closer to £3.9m (which I guess puts it somewhat in line with the £10.3m unsecured creditors (p11) accrued in the months leading up to Administration?




Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
@Natasha Whittam wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Interesting photo. Sharon looks like someone's pinched her bottom. PK looks like a garden gnome and Emma...... Lets not go there.

Listen to Brad Pitt.
Bless you, Natasha, but it was really the looks on their faces that I was commenting on. Sharon's an attractive lady but, having now looked a bit more at the latest from the administrators, I can well understand how miffed she might be at where her money is going.

Since the BN is going to explain anything (what's new?), FV have, it seems, agreed to adopt the name The Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Club and, in order for that to happen, the 1895 company has been renamed BWFC2019 Limited. Its purely cosmetic but still a good idea.

Not sure if its been mentioned anywhere, but its the administrators that have given instructions to pursue bankruptcy proceedings against Bassini.

Thank you Bob very interesting.

A couple of other things I noted that I may add,

- The Administrators hold the first charge over FV's assets (presumably until all their fees and expenses have been settled in full)(p3 of the document/page 10 of the filing)).

- They had to chase up the Rugby Football League for payment of the semi-final games (p3)

- The club traded at a loss of £1.1m during Administration (p8) [again emphasising the fact the clubs costs are more than their income as they were pre-Anderson and now post-Anderson]

-FV still owe Warburton £3m and he has a charge against their assets so to Eddies estate for £10.5m (p9/10)

- Anderson received only £237k for full and final payment and all future claims (p10) [and not the £5m that many believed he would from the money Davies loaned him to pay BM - fwiw I continually told people that there were no assets available to secure such a claim on but 'knew' better!].

One thing though I'm not clear about though is Asset Realisation of £2.8m shown as 'Third Party Funds'?  I assume this is the money FV (and others?) put in to keep the club solvent during the Admin process (page 2 of 2/page 6 of the filing), in which case I guess the true trading deficit during Admin was closer to £3.9m (which I guess puts it somewhat in line with the £10.3m unsecured creditors (p11) accrued in the months leading up to Administration?




Hope you noticed my typo, since corrected.

I have noticed an error in the figures (Appendix 3) and would need to look at them a bit more closely to make sense of them all.

But you are right, losing money before and losing money after. Its a question of how long can you fund and sustain the losses.

Expensive business, administrations.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Hope you noticed my typo, since corrected.

I have noticed an error in the figures (Appendix 3) and would need to look at them a bit more closely to make sense of them all.

But you are right, losing money before and losing money after. Its a question of how long can you fund and sustain the losses.

Expensive business, administrations.

It did make me smile when I read about the BN/(Iles by implication) but your intention was clear and obvious!

I couldn't understand the the 'Third Party Funds' had been reconciled  for Appendix 3 but I assumed it was because of my lack of knowledge - hence my query above - and couldn't understand why Appendix 3 balanced to £448,643.29 whilst the Admins summary at the beginning balanced to £457,342.70 when both covered the same period, namely 13th May, 2019 to 16th January, 2020?

But to be honest I was now out of my depth and assumed it was I that wasn't understanding things properly.

It's really good I think for everyone that a few people such as your good self and our dear departed but not forgotten friend Rammy are able to properly understand the accounts and what they actually tell us and give of their time to explain them to the large majority of us (and I include myself in that) who don't understand what the numbers mean, or at least not fully.

I know few people are actually really interested in such stuff but what the accounts actually tell us paints a vastly different picture than the large majority of Bolton fans have constantly believed based on nothing more than other peoples opinions and innuendos posted on social media and gullibly swallowed as gospel by most without a second thought.

Anderson my well not be the nicest bloke in the world but up to now there appears to be no evidence whatsoever that he did anything other than keep an insolvent company going for as long as he was able too, without pissing away his own personal wealth.

Fwiw the Administrators themselves refused to put in any money of their own to keep the club running during their control of the club during the Administration period  - exactly doing what KA had done during his control of the club!

Just because Eddie and now FV have put their own personal money into the club to keep it going didn't mean that KA had to do the same - nor did he deserve the widespread abuse and threats (based on ignorance and fed on hatred) for not doing so.

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Hope you noticed my typo, since corrected.

I have noticed an error in the figures (Appendix 3) and would need to look at them a bit more closely to make sense of them all.

But you are right, losing money before and losing money after. Its a question of how long can you fund and sustain the losses.

Expensive business, administrations.

It did make me smile when I read about the BN/(Iles by implication) but your intention was clear and obvious!

I couldn't understand the the 'Third Party Funds' had been reconciled  for Appendix 3 but I assumed it was because of my lack of knowledge - hence my query above - and couldn't understand why Appendix 3 balanced to £448,643.29 whilst the Admins summary at the beginning balanced to £457,342.70 when both covered the same period, namely 13th May, 2019 to 16th January, 2020?

But to be honest I was now out of my depth and assumed it was I that wasn't understanding things properly.

It's really good I think for everyone that a few people such as your good self and our dear departed but not forgotten friend Rammy are able to properly understand the accounts and what they actually tell us and give of their time to explain them to the large majority of us (and I include myself in that) who don't understand what the numbers mean, or at least not fully.

I know few people are actually really interested in such stuff but what the accounts actually tell us paints a vastly different picture than the large majority of Bolton fans have constantly believed based on nothing more than other peoples opinions and innuendos posted on social media and gullibly swallowed as gospel by most without a second thought.

Anderson my well not be the nicest bloke in the world but up to now there appears to be no evidence whatsoever that he did anything other than keep an insolvent company going for as long as he was able too, without pissing away his own personal wealth.

Fwiw the Administrators themselves refused to put in any money of their own to keep the club running during their control of the club during the Administration period  - exactly doing what KA had done during his control of the club!

Just because Eddie and now FV have put their own personal money into the club to keep it going didn't mean that KA had to do the same - nor did he deserve the widespread abuse and threats (based on ignorance and fed on hatred) for not doing so.
That's very kind of you, Sluffy. Some folk get really upset at facts that don't fit in with their agendas.

Had an unexpectedly busy day today and sadly had to cancel my appointment with my favourite author. Not that I'm interested at all in Pro Wrestling but Fin's such good company.

Hopefully I'll get chance to have another look at the administrator's latest tomorrow.

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Looked at it again, Sluffy. It is quite difficult to follow and I cannot see that any of its been reported in the media or commented on in social media.
I'm wondering if its worth the bother of trying to explain it at all as most folk seem to prefer to cling to irrational notions.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Looked at it again, Sluffy. It is quite difficult to follow and I cannot see that any of its been reported in the media or commented on in social media.
I'm wondering if its worth the bother of trying to explain it at all as most folk seem to prefer to cling to irrational notions.

You are absolutely right, people have already made their minds up about Anderson and aren't prepared to change them no matter what.

If there is anything of particular interest you find in the Administrator's figures then please do share it with us but otherwise don't waste your time and energy trying to explain things to the many who unfortunately don't wish to know.

Let them continue to live in bliss instead.

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
I need to go back over the administrators different statements, Sluffy, to make sure I haven't missed anything. Who has made the 'Contribution towards Trading Expenses'  of £2,332,773 (Appendix 3A)and who is going to pick up the tab for the mountain of presently unpaid fees? Its less than clear but, if its Sue Davies, there's not going to be much left of Eddie's final £5m (if she ever sees that).

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I need to go back over the administrators different statements, Sluffy, to make sure I haven't missed anything. Who has made the 'Contribution towards Trading Expenses'  of £2,332,773 (Appendix 3A)and who is going to pick up the tab for the mountain of presently unpaid fees? Its less than clear but, if its Sue Davies, there's not going to be much left of Eddie's final £5m (if she ever sees that).

I'd assumed that the £2.3m 'contributions' were linked with the £2.794m 'third party funds' shown in their summary at the beginning of the report - but obviously the totals didn't match.

I also assumed that at least £1m of this was from the Administrators initial request for that amount as a 'non returnable deposit' from FV at the start of them being the only people able to pass the criteria to but the club.

As for the unpaid fees, I've read on Wways by a poster called Escobarp (who although has little time for you, did know his stuff when it came to mergers and acquisitions) posted the following -

"They haven’t said they don’t have the money can someone show me where that’s been said?
 
what’s been said is they are not yet in a position to pay them as they are still agreeing the figure which they hope to do this year. Admin is a complex business and there will be costs and claims in there that fv will be disputing and rightly so. This isn’t unusual".
Page 26 of the FV Ownership model (25 Jan).

It might be that the final total for the fees is a great deal less than claimed perhaps?

Just a few thoughts that I hope may be of use to you.

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I need to go back over the administrators different statements, Sluffy, to make sure I haven't missed anything. Who has made the 'Contribution towards Trading Expenses'  of £2,332,773 (Appendix 3A)and who is going to pick up the tab for the mountain of presently unpaid fees? Its less than clear but, if its Sue Davies, there's not going to be much left of Eddie's final £5m (if she ever sees that).

I'd assumed that the £2.3m 'contributions' were linked with the £2.794m 'third party funds' shown in their summary at the beginning of the report - but obviously the totals didn't match.

I also assumed that at least £1m of this was from the Administrators initial request for that amount as a 'non returnable deposit' from FV at the start of them being the only people able to pass the criteria to but the club.

As for the unpaid fees, I've read on Wways by a poster called Escobarp (who although has little time for you, did know his stuff when it came to mergers and acquisitions) posted the following -

"They haven’t said they don’t have the money can someone show me where that’s been said?
 
what’s been said is they are not yet in a position to pay them as they are still agreeing the figure which they hope to do this year. Admin is a complex business and there will be costs and claims in there that fv will be disputing and rightly so. This isn’t unusual".
Page 26 of the FV Ownership model (25 Jan).

It might be that the final total for the fees is a great deal less than claimed perhaps?

Just a few thoughts that I hope may be of use to you.
Thanks Sluffy.

Although I've never met him, it was always evident to me that Escobarp had some knowledge/experience but I have to say that he also seemed to fit into that foul-mouthed schoolboy gang type culture that seems to be a distinctive characteristic of the WW lot. I'm not sure I'd agree with George Bower on many things but there would be room for some agreement on the nature of some of WW's 'leading lights'.

I'm also not sure about the lawyers, administrators and the rest settling for 'a great deal less' but there might be room for some compromises.

As for who is going to pick up the tab, I note what you say but I'd still like to look at it again. There's no mention of the £1m in the latest document.

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Another quick thought, Sluffy. A non-refundable deposit means part of what you are paying for the business/property etc. It doesn't mean a contribution to the costs of the administration or meeting some of the cost of running the business during the pre-acquisition period.

Lets see after I've made a fuller review of what's been published. Maybe tomorrow, too much to do today.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Another quick thought, Sluffy. A non-refundable deposit means part of what you are paying for the business/property etc. It doesn't mean a contribution to the costs of the administration or meeting some of the cost of running the business during the pre-acquisition period.

Lets see after I've made a fuller review of what's been published. Maybe tomorrow, too much to do today.

I probably misworded it above (and so misled you, sorry if I did, but) the £1m was for the immediate running of the club, see here -

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2019/june/statement-on-behalf-of-the-joint-administrators-for-bolton-wanderers/


Please there is no rush for you to review the details, I'm sure everybody is more than grateful anyway that you give of your time to do such things to enlighten us.

We are more than happy to wait to a time best suited to you.

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Had another look at this, Sluffy. I agree that it’s not easy to follow.


There seem to be a couple of errors/possible errors but not worth going into detail but this is how I see it:


There are presently nearly £2.5m of unpaid professional fees, Rubins, Stephenson Harwood & Consulting Logistics (Keith Cousins) being the biggest. A further £2.3m has already been contributed towards trading deficits by ‘third parties’.

On the basis that FV agreed (amongst other things) to pay ‘football creditors’ and contribute sufficient funds to pay unsecured creditors 35P in the pound (c. £3.5m), it seems to me that its FV that may have paid all or most of the £2.3m and face further charges of another £2.5m.

FV also, of course, have to pay the secured creditors and fund the continuing operating deficits.

I suppose that there could be a counter argument that it was the ED Trust that appointed the administrators and that FV agreed to a contribution of £1.2m only towards those costs. (See Page 4 of the administrators report filed on 3 December 2019)

A small crumb of comfort is that there's still £374K in the administrators bank account and a bit of VAT to come back.


Meanwhile that paragon of virtue, Dale Vince, doesn’t seem to have filed the Ecotricity Group accounts, which are consequently overdue.

P.S. This might be of interest/relevance.

https://lionofviennasuite.sbnation.com/2019/7/10/20688824/john-terrys-former-agent-lined-up-to-be-wanderers-new-director-of-football

Do you think that Sharon might have asked Mr Vince's opinion of Mr Cousins?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Had another look at this, Sluffy. I agree that it’s not easy to follow.


There seem to be a couple of errors/possible errors but not worth going into detail but this is how I see it:


There are presently nearly £2.5m of unpaid professional fees, Rubins, Stephenson Harwood & Consulting Logistics (Keith Cousins) being the biggest. A further £2.3m has already been contributed towards trading deficits by ‘third parties’.

On the basis that FV agreed (amongst other things) to pay ‘football creditors’ and contribute sufficient funds to pay unsecured creditors 35P in the pound (c. £3.5m), it seems to me that its FV that may have paid all or most of the £2.3m and face further charges of another £2.5m.

FV also, of course, have to pay the secured creditors and fund the continuing operating deficits.

I suppose that there could be a counter argument that it was the ED Trust that appointed the administrators and that FV agreed to a contribution of £1.2m only towards those costs. (See Page 4 of the administrators report filed on 3 December 2019)

A small crumb of comfort is that there's still £374K in the administrators bank account and a bit of VAT to come back.


Meanwhile that paragon of virtue, Dale Vince, doesn’t seem to have filed the Ecotricity Group accounts, which are consequently overdue.

P.S. This might be of interest/relevance.

https://lionofviennasuite.sbnation.com/2019/7/10/20688824/john-terrys-former-agent-lined-up-to-be-wanderers-new-director-of-football

Do you think that Sharon might have asked Mr Vince's opinion of Mr Cousins?

Thank you Bob, very insightful and informed as always.

I've always thought that whoever appointed the Administrator was the one to pay his bill and it now makes even more sense to me with your observation of the fact that the sale to FV involved them making a contribution of £1.2m to the Administrators fees.

Unless I mistaken (I may be as I've not double checked) haven't the Administrators already been paid over £1m and seem to be waiting on the rest?

It may well be that FV have met/are up to date on their part of the agreement and it is in fact Fildraw who are queering/arguing about the rest of the Administrators fees?  This would certainly fit in with Nixon reporting they have yet to be paid in full and FV not making any public statement about things other than to let it be known it is not an issue to them?

The reverse could be true of course and Fildraw have paid their part of the Administrators bill but if that was the case all Sharon would have to do is to point to the fact that her contribution of £1.2m towards them hasn't even fallen due for full payment yet, which is still another several months away (being twelve months from the date she bought the club.

To my mind the fee is a fixed contractual price to FV and would have to be paid if the Administrators final fee was £1.2m and a penny or £1.2 billion - so it would follow that FV would not be involved over any disagreement in respect of the Administrators final charge but Fildraw most definitely would.

This would also mean that it is Fildraw facing the Administrators remaining bill of a couple of million or so and not FV.

I would also see this £1.2m FV payment being made separate to the accounts the Administrator has filed and not as part of the £2.3m third party contributions, which I now believe are all from FV to initially keep the club trading and then to make the first agreed staged payments to the various creditors.

As for your link from Manning's site, I'm afraid it was published last July and his involvement was commissioned by Rubins - hence why Cousin's company is shown as one of their agents during Administration.

It seems Sharon is more inclined to Kenyon for footballing advise these days.

As for Vince the less said about him the better.

Keep up the good work Bob as I for one couldn't understand what is/was happening financially without you lighting the way for us!

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
I'm sure that the £1m, initially paid by FV, was to put Rubin's in funds to pay urgent costs, like wages for example. i.e. not to pay the administrators fees.

I believe the fees were estimated but not fixed and seem to have grown at an alarming rate. Keith Cousins £671K makes KA's £525K seem like a bargain, if he ever saw it, which I doubt he did.

One can but wonder how much the ED Trust has left but I expect that there will be agreements in place as to who is responsible for what.

I'd be reluctant to jump to any conclusion but if EDT are left picking up the tab there's going to be little, if any, of Eddie's final £5m left. EDT's solicitors will need paying too and that's not part of the administration.

No-one's going to be happy either way but isn't it interesting that the BN and its readers seem to be almost totally unaware of what's going on.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I'm sure that the £1m, initially paid by FV, was to put Rubin's in funds to pay urgent costs, like wages for example. i.e. not to pay the administrators fees.

I believe the fees were estimated but not fixed and seem to have grown at an alarming rate. Keith Cousins £671K makes KA's £525K seem like a bargain, if he ever saw it, which I doubt he did.

One can but wonder how much the ED Trust has left but I expect that there will be agreements in place as to who is responsible for what.

I'd be reluctant to jump to any conclusion but if EDT are left picking up the tab there's going to be little, if any, of Eddie's final £5m left. EDT's solicitors will need paying too and that's not part of the administration.

No-one's going to be happy either way but isn't it interesting that the BN and its readers seem to be almost totally unaware of what's going on.

Yes, I agree with you that the £1m from FV was put in to meet running costs and the £1m is reflected as part of the £2.3m third party contributions.

What I'm trying to say (sorry if I've not made it clearer, my fault) is that an additional and separate amount of £1.2m from FV will/has been paid directly to Rubins as well - ie not part of the £2.3m shown as third party contributions.  The amount is not due for final settlement until a year from the sale, so I suspect it probably isn't yet paid in full.

I assume there is ongoing dialogue between EDT and Rubins over costs (particularly Cousins total that seems excessive to say the least viewing it from afar).

Maybe EDT made agreements with FV to meet additional charges resulting from the Administration but as they seemed short of funds all through the long drawn out purchases process, even before Administration took place, it seems to me unlikely that they were in a position to underwrite such potential costs, at least not in the short term.

I would imagine if Rubins were to be knocking on anyone's door for their money it would be far more likely to be EDT's than FV's.

Maybe the last great gift Eddie/EDT was to give to us was to settle the exorbitant Administrators fee, rather than simply let the club be liquidated and simply get his secured money back from the sale of the assets.

I'm not surprised in the least that the BN and its readers are totally unaware as to what is going on as their only conduit to inform on such things is Iles and he is utterly clueless on this and many other matters.

To be fair to him though we are both struggling to understand the position and we do have a professional training and expertise ourselves in these areas!

To be honest probably 99.9% of those who follow the club have little to no interest in such financial matters even now when the club nearly went out of business because of how its expenditure is constantly greater than its income - and the consequences thereof - and that position still remains the same even now.

As Rubins hold the first charge over FV's assets, and EDT is a secured creditor on £5m or so of those assets, it may well be that unless the Administrators fees aren't sorted out amicably away from the club that it may again be pulled into some further financial issues that it had not planned for.

Makes the current debates about Moneyball and shutting the upper tiers all a bit spurious really!

That said though I think everything will work out ok in the end on this matter.

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
I don't know what percentages of folks are interested, Sluffy, but I do know that there has been no shortage of empty vessels making lots of noise and that was going on long before Ken Anderson arrived on the scene.

Tbh I don't expect it to change much. Maybe I should stick to ping pong. I'm finding more interest in Chester Barnes' blog. Marc Iles' daily offerings just irritate me.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I don't know what percentages of folks are interested, Sluffy, but I do know that there has been no shortage of empty vessels making lots of noise and that was going on long before Ken Anderson arrived on the scene.

Tbh I don't expect it to change much. Maybe I should stick to ping pong. I'm finding more interest in Chester Barnes' blog. Marc Iles' daily offerings just irritate me.

There always were empty vessels and there will always be ones also, the trick is to hear only the precious few voices who clearly know what they are talking about from the rest of the bable.

BWFC is in your blood as it is mine and is the only thing that still binds us to it, certainly the abuse and behaviour of many of our own fans seems at time want me to walk away, I certainly don't need to put up with it for simply stating how companies run and the law they work to, which is far different from what a vast majority (including the local press reporter) are aware of, and which sets a completely separate and often contradictory tone to what the vast majority in their ignorance of the facts believe.

Iles and the empty vessels aren't going away any time soon so we have no choice but to tolerate them as best we can for as long as we can - and visa-versa for them too!

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Sluffy wrote:BWFC is in your blood as it is mine

:trust:

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Just leave them to it Nat, as they say they are both far more knowledgeable about financial matters than us mere plebs  Very Happy

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:Just leave them to it Nat, as they say they are both far more knowledgeable about financial matters than us mere plebs  Very Happy

The sad thing is that we ARE more knowledgeable about such things, we are professionally trained in them and made a good career in such professions and all we ever wanted to do was to share and explain to others less knowledgeable about such things what was actually going on - which by and large was in stark contrast to what the vast majority of people were led to believe by 'influencers' such as Iles.

Ok, if you or anyone else doesn't/didn't want to believe us, then that's your choice, we are after all just some random people posting on the internet without any proof of the knowledge and skills we say we have - but the longer time as moved on from Anderson's departure the more of what we have been saying is proving to be right and the more of the utter garbage about him raping and pillaging the club for his own pocket, wrong.

Funny that really don't you think, considering that just the same two people on here who stood against the rest on what was happening financially (and more importantly the reasons why in law they were) at the club seemed to be vindicated from the Administrator and his hoard of forensic accountants going through the books, whilst most others simply jumped on the bandwagon being driven by Iles and the ST who clearly had pro-Holdsworth, anti-Anderson agendas, and seem to be very wide of the mark?

As for the esteemed one I note he's getting extremely frustrated that he's clearly being given the cold shoulder by FV!!!

I wonder why that is!

Ten Bobsworth


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
I suspect, Sluffy, that the administrators of BL & BWFC would have been only too pleased to nail Ken Anderson given half a chance and the Official Receiver seems unlikely to have been lenient or slow to act if there was anything of substance to go at.

KA was walking a financial tightrope and it would have been all too easy to slip up, even if inadvertently. The Official Receiver will have had the directors conduct report for about six months now, so far without any indication of any action.

Is that long enough to conclude that there's no case to answer? I'm not sure but when I saw him in action at the shareholders AGM, I came away with the sense of a confident guy who knew his stuff and was likely to take every precaution. Indeed I couldn't help but conclude that the AGM itself was a precaution.

Iles does know about the amounts Holdsworth had cost BWFC but neither he nor the ST are willing to acknowledge or report it at all. You also don't have to be the best forensic accountant in the world to spot the accumulation of cash in Holdsworth companies or how unlikely it was that Holdsworth spent the best part of a million quid on fees as Terrence Rigby told those who attended the last meeting of the ST and who, seemingly, were too dopey to question Rigby's assertion.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum