Bolton's Finances / Accounts for year ending 30th June 2021 and everything else since.

Sluffy wrote:

I've long held the view that Wanderlust has personal issues.

I did use to feel sorry for him.

Those days have long gone.

Now I just laugh at him.

Isn't Wanderlust just one of nature's wallies? I expect he feels at home amongst fellow wallies.

Anyway back to Kenneth. Now Sluffy has finally accepted that the Administrators did significantly understate the creditors, I do hope he might try to figure out why they did it and where it left poor old Kenneth. 

Had DI Grimm been the former owner of BWFC he might have put it this way, "My arse will be on the line and I don't want a cock up"

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Now Sluffy has finally accepted that the Administrators did significantly understate the creditors, I do hope he might try to figure out why they did it and where it left poor old Kenneth. 

???

I haven't though Bob.

What I've said was that 'the creditors', EDT and KA, claimed that they had security of £17.5m and £7.5m in BL and pointed to the fact that they registered themselves as secured creditors in Sept/Oct 2018 for circa £7.5m each.

The Administrator stated that there was no record of BL ever receiving such sums and struck out their claims for these amounts.

That isn't the Administrator understating their claims but rather them (EDT and KA) having deliberately overstated their claims on BL.

I don't doubt a contract between ED and KA to settle BM was made away from BL but that in legal terms had nothing to do with BL and was separate to the insolvency that the Administrator was appointed to discharge as the representative of the Companies List (formerly known as the Companies Court).

Companies List

Who we are
We are a specialist court within the Business and Property Courts of the High Court of Justice.

We are based at the Rolls Building in London and also at district registries across England and Wales. Cases at the Rolls Building are heard by one of 5 Insolvency and Companies Court judges and cases at district registries are heard by district judges.

What we do
The Insolvency and Companies List was formerly known as the Companies Court.

We handle cases relating to the insolvency of companies, including:

Appeals against a decision by a liquidator to reject a proof of debt in an insolvency

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

Unless the Administrator is LYING and has FALSIFIED Burnden Leisure's accounts, then the circa £7.5m amounts of both ED and KA were never received by BL (or thereafter left it to pay BM).

And if the Administrator was LYING and had FALSIFIED the accounts why then didn't EDT and KA appeal to the  specialist court about this breaching of their contracts with BL and specifically in existence to deal with such appeals???

The Administrator did not 'misrepresent' or 'understate' the creditors - he merely reported on and acted accordingly with what BL's bank statements actually showed were was received and what wasn't!

How difficult would it have been for EDT and KA to simply show their bank statements as their proof and basis of appeal to prove that they had indeed deposited their circa £7.5m's into BL and thus show that the Administrator had made some sort of major mistake against them???

It seems abundantly clear that the charges made against BL in Sept/Oct 2018 by ED (Moonshift) and KA in respect registering themselves as Secured Creditors against BL did not go through BL books, the money was never received into BL and thus EDT and KA's respective claims for circa £7.5m against BL had never occurred.

As it never occurred the Administrator appointed to deal with the insolvency at BL, legally and properly dismissed these amounts.

How could he not?

I simply can't get my head around why you think he should have done and accept a transaction between ED and KA to settle BM completely independently of BL?

I can understand that BL benefitted by circa £5m by having the BM creditor settled away from itself but legally that doesn't mean that whoever paid it had a claim on BL, without some previous contractual agreement between BL and the entity that settled the BM debt.

And if that was the case (that a pre-existing contract actually DID exist) then whoever held this contractual agreement with BL could simply prove its existence to the High Court as their bases of an appeal.

But this begs the question why the Administrator recorded no such creditor on his schedule of Creditors List?

Implying their wasn't such a contract in existence between BL and A N Other?

I've met Lusty in person and he is of sound mind and body and a lovely fella, so seeing as he isn't on here very often,then give it a rest Waldorf and Stadler.

Congratulations, Sluffy! If the Administrators excuse for understating the creditors was lame and feeble, your own is right up there with it.  

But it mattered not because Ken and his advisors weren't wet-behind-the-ears numpties from Numptytown and plainly had done quite enough to ensure Ken wasn't fully exposed. On the other hand, he had taken on a big personal liability despite securing it as Blumarble had done.

That bit is simple to understand. The rest is more involved and, dare I say it, a bit more mentally challenging.

Norpig wrote:I've met Lusty in person and he is of sound mind and body and a lovely fella, so seeing as he isn't on here very often,then give it a rest Waldorf and Stadler.

Norpig, no offence, you met Wanderlust once - good for you.

People put on different faces as different times to different people.

Loads of people thought Lucy Letby was of sound mind...

...she wasn't.

Now I'm not comparing your mate to a baby killer but I am saying you don't know him any more than you know me who you have never met, based on just a few hours chat over a cup of tea.

You would no doubt sing my praises if you ever met me for a few hours, I can charm and impress people also if I wanted too - I'm sure you can also.

My view of him is having to deal with his behaviour on here, and towards me personally, daily, for the last three or four years.

Actions always speak far louder than words.

Sluffy he is hardly on here but almost every post you make you mention him. And you say your aren't obsessed! Stop harping on about him all the time!

Lusty simply knows how to push your buttons and you fall for it hook line and sinker every time.

So now we are comparing Wanderlust to Lucy Letby?

You seriously need help for this unhealthy obsession that you have Sluffy!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Congratulations, Sluffy! If the Administrators excuse for understating the creditors was lame and feeble, your own is right up there with it.  

But it mattered not because Ken and his advisors weren't wet-behind-the-ears numpties from Numptytown and plainly had done quite enough to ensure Ken wasn't fully exposed. On the other hand, he had taken on a big personal liability despite securing it as Blumarble had done.

That bit is simple to understand. The rest is more involved and, dare I say it, a bit more mentally challenging.

Thanks Bob.

The fact is the Administrator clearly stated in his official report, which was written as a representative of the High Court of this country, that his reasons given for reducing the amounts of EDT and KA was simply because that is what the companies accounts showed them to be...

"The amount outstanding to Fildraw in respect of these borrowings is disclosed in the Company's records as £10,050,000"
Page 17 of 39  - 10.1 Secured Creditors - Fildraw.

"The Company's records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson as £1.578,042
Page 17 of 39  - 10.1 Secured Creditors - Kenneth Anderson.


Now either he was LYING or his was telling the TRUTH.

If he was LYING it would be easy for KA to disprove him by showing his bank statement has to how his £7.5m was deposited into BL's bank account.

ED could do exactly the same for his deposit of £7.5m into BL.

Similarly if there was some contractual agreement with ED and/or KA, to settle BM directly (thus acting as BL's agent) and by doing so the value of that settlement would be considered to be a charge on the assets of BL, in their name, on completion - then proof of this contractual arrangement would also easily be available to provide evidence to contradict the Administrators action.

Bob, you can ridicule me to your hearts content, it won't change the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that ED or KA lawfully registered their charges of circa £7.5m against BL in Sept/Oct 2018.

Your speciality that you have frequently demonstrated your impressive knowledge of his accountancy, my field is compliance with the law.

The Administrator unless he is LYING (he's NOT misrepresenting anything because he's stated in his official report what the Company's records are!) was simply complying by the law - no matter what sort of conspiracy you may believe he's been up to.

karlypants wrote:So now we are comparing Wanderlust to Lucy Letby?

You seriously need help for this unhealthy obsession that you have Sluffy!

Sluffy wrote:Now I'm not comparing your mate to a baby killer but I am saying you don't know him any more than you know me who you have never met, based on just a few hours chat over a cup of tea.

karlypants wrote:So now we are comparing Wanderlust to Lucy Letby?

You seriously need help for this unhealthy obsession that you have Sluffy!

I think Sluffy needs help in understanding the basics of business finance. Occasionally he shows promise but he doesn't half go off on ridiculous hikes at times and there's no telling him that Keswick's in the Lake District when he's got it into his head that its in Cornwall.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

karlypants wrote:So now we are comparing Wanderlust to Lucy Letby?

You seriously need help for this unhealthy obsession that you have Sluffy!

I think Sluffy needs help in understanding the basics of business finance. Occasionally he shows promise but he doesn't half go off on ridiculous hikes at times and there's no telling him that Keswick's in the Lake District when he's got it into his head that its in Cornwall.

And maybe you need to take a course in Regulatory compliance, Bob?

Regulatory compliance describes the goal that organisations aspire to achieve in their efforts to ensure that they are aware of and take steps to comply with relevant laws, policies, and regulations

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

Norpig, put one of your records on. Noise distraction sometimes works.

Sluffy if you weren’t a mod/admin on here then you would have been banned a long time ago and that would be if you acted like this on any forum regardless.

How you can be like this and ban other members for similar behaviour is beyond me. You seem to have double standards when it comes to yourself and others.

It’s not on.

Norpig wrote:Sluffy he is hardly on here but almost every post you make you mention him. And you say your aren't obsessed! Stop harping on about him all the time!

Lusty simply knows how to push your buttons and you fall for it hook line and sinker every time.

Fuck me you are all hard work.

Let's start again.

1 - Wanderlust who hasn't been around much, out of the blue posts to have a dig at me.

2 - I turn his post into a joke by posting up a video of a song 'Tell me Lies'

3 - BTID immediately posts to tell me I'm obsessed, later too does Karly.

4 - I post back to say that it is in fact Wanderlust who is obsessed with me - he's the one who went out of his way to post on here, having a pop at me remember!!!

5 - Some days later I read on ww, Wanderlust posting his obsessiveness towards me, so I copy and paste it on to the thread to which I replied to BTID evidencing to him (and Karly) that it is indeed Wanderlust with the obsession.

6 - Immediately Karly reacts (I don't think he's grasped that I was simply  replying to BTID's original post?)

7 - Next Bob, pops up to ridicule Wanderlust, stating his level is that of being in a cesspit.

8 - I reply that my opinion (based on his years of postings) was that he had personal issues - his behaviour is not normal even on social media in my opinion.

9 - Next we have Norpig giving Wanderlust a glowing personal testimonial  based on a couple of hours chat over tea and biscuits at Norpig Towers.

10 - I point out that anyone can put a good front up and fool people over a couple of hours - it is easily done.

11 - Karly jumps the gun and thinks I was comparing him with a child killer (ffs!) - I wasn't.


Fuck me ALL OF THAT and all because Wanderlust once again decided (because of his obsession with me!) to come on to here (his internet home is and has been for the last twelve months ww) and have yet ANOTHER pop at me!

Jesus it really is like dealing with a bunch of screaming children on here at times.

Grow up - Wanderlust has issues with me, can't let them go and I take the piss out of him.

That's is all that this is.

Don't you get it???

All everyone wants you to do is leave him alone. If he’s done something wrong then tell him off and have done with it. You are saying that he is obsessed with you when you are the one going on about him all the bloody time. You simply can’t see it so why not step aside to take a look at yourself.

All we simply want is for you to shut the fuck up about him and if he comes back posting to leave him be regardless of your thoughts about him etc!

karlypants wrote:Sluffy if you weren’t a mod/admin on here then you would have been banned a long time ago and that would be if you acted like this on any forum regardless.

How you can be like this and ban other members for similar behaviour is beyond me. You seem to have double standards when it comes to yourself and others.

It’s not on.

And for the record i would much rather go for a pint with Lusty than you Sluffy you have no self awareness of how petty, pompous and ridiculous you come across on here. I wouldn't take the risk of having a pint with you just in case i waste it and pour it over your head.

karlypants wrote:Sluffy if you weren’t a mod/admin on here then you would have been banned a long time ago and that would be if you acted like this on any forum regardless.

How you can be like this and ban other members for similar behaviour is beyond me. You seem to have double standards when it comes to yourself and others.

It’s not on.

I'm NOT above the law on here and never have been.

If you want to ban me for doing something you perceive I've done wrong then do so.

I've NEVER banned anyone for what you consider to be 'similar behaviour' - Wanderlust was banned for numerous times for abuse and racial slurs (you banned him for that one remember over remarks he made towards your wife!) and for a 3 months hiatus - which I remind you I too voluntary stopped posting as well - in a last attempt to put an end to the Wanderlust and Sluffy show.

I have never treated Wanderlust in any way differently than I would expect to be treated myself - stepping away for three months from here myself proves that.

If I lied and been persistently personal abusive, despite multiple requests and warnings to pack it in, then I would expect a decent well run site to sanction me accordingly, wouldn't you?

If Wanderlust wants to return again and have yet another pop at me I will again laugh at him.

If you want to ban me for laughing at him - then do so!

If you want to ban me for laughing at him - then do so!

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