Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

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

+11
finlaymcdanger
Ten Bobsworth
Sluffy
Whitesince63
BarrygoestoBolton
BoltonTillIDie
Cajunboy
Natasha Whittam
wanderlust
terenceanne
karlypants
15 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 13 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 31 ... 40  Next

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 23 of 40]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Norpig wrote: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.

Up to you who you drink with and who you choose as your mates.

I've long since made it a rule not to meet up with anybody off social media, I've already had a few nutcases trying to fuck up my real life - one of whom is a ST Board Member and another who owned a rival BWFC forum!

Maybe I don't have any self awareness, am petty, pompous and ridiculous but luckily for me that miraculously hasn't stopped me being blessed with a loving family, wonderful friends, and a successful career, so I can't be all that bad as a real person - which after all is all that matters.

You seem like a decent bloke to me Norpig, so it sounds as though Wanderlust is lucky to have you as a mate.

Hope you both enjoy your blossoming bromance.

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

This is keeping the bots buzzing. Over 12,400 views now. I wonder what they are making of it.

If anyone's bored they could take a look at Wandererswallys and see what Lusty and his current associates have to say about our former chairman.

Cesspit or sewer? Lets have a heated debate

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluffy wrote:

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.]
Dear oh dear, Sluffy. What's up with you?

No competent commercial lawyer would be fobbed off with the demonstrably feeble excuse put forward by the Administrators. It would sound alarm bells in an instant (or at least it should) yet you choose to accept it as gospel before inventing yet more feeble excuses of your own.

Quite extraordinary but am I right in thinking that you also invented a mystery man that helped Eddie Davies fund Bolton Wanderers on the basis of some other ill-thought-out theory of yours?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sluffy wrote: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.]
Dear oh dear, Sluffy. What's up with you?

No competent commercial lawyer would be fobbed off with the demonstrably feeble excuse put forward by the Administrators. It would sound alarm bells in an instant (or at least it should) yet you choose to accept it as gospel before inventing yet more feeble excuses of your own.

Bob,

The title of the document that was filed by the Administrator at Companies House on the 22nd July is as follows - the document was written FOR the High Court's jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

3118 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

THE BOLTON WANDERERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC COMPANY LIMITED IN ARMINISTRATION


AND

THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986


It states this...

Sluffy wrote:"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.

THE REPORT IS A COURT DOCUMENT and the officer of the court is obviously required to be honest and truthful.

We aren't in this case in a world of conspiracy and lies.

This was a normal day to day insolvency of a company that the Administrator and High Court deals with week in and week out.

It may be a very special case to you and I but it isn't to them and the Administrator had no reason or cause other than to act in accordance with the law.

Christ if he was writing LIES (misrepresentations) to the High Court, that would be the end of his career - and no one would throw that away for something that could so easily be proven a lie.

Sluffy wrote: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.

As for this, I have no idea what you are talking about???

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Quite extraordinary but am I right in thinking that you also invented a mystery man that helped Eddie Davies fund Bolton Wanderers on the basis of some other ill-thought-out theory of yours?

I do recall in the early days that I couldn't understand how someone reported to have had a total wealth of £93m (Times Rich List) could have put £200m plus  into BWFC?

There was something at the time about Moonshift (iirc?) providing a line of credit from some bank (from some West Indian tax haven country) that ED was stated to "have an interest in" - or something like that, I can't remember fully now - and I wonder out loud that maybe others as well as ED were investing in the club.


Finally Bob, if you haven't noticed I've been taking a hell of a lot of stick recently over Wanderlust, there are more than a few claims that I'm obsessed over him.  I've pointed out that in fact it is the other way about, that it is actually him with the obsession over me, in the similar way the he is obsessed about Brexit, his hatred for the Tory Party, his hatred for Ken Anderson and several other things I could mention too.  The reason I state this is because you've clearly have your own obsessions in respect to those you perceive to be besmirching the good names of BWFC, Eddie Davies and Ken Anderson - I simply can't believe that you've held it in your head something I posted on a footy forum years ago, that even I've mostly forgotten about OR you've trawled through pages of historical posts on this site recently and found something I was blindly wondering about years and years ago, and raise the matter now????

Christ if I'm perceived to be obsessed and that Wanderlust must be doubly obsessed, then what must you be?

Bob let me speak frankly if I may.

It's gone, it has all gone, the Administration has ended, Eddie has died, Anderson is eating his Toblerone in his chalet in Switzerland, Burnden Leisure has been liquidated.

Let it go mate, whatever the rights or wrongs that you are fighting can't be changed, they are all nothing but history now.

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

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

For any newcomers to this thread, a synopsis. Surprised

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Very Happy

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

'The Company's records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson as £1.578,042'  quite simply means that 'the records' that they refer to had not been updated to show that Ken Anderson had borrowed c. £5million from Eddie Davies to repay Blumarble who were about to foreclose on the debt.


That is clearly what happened and the Administrators knew it.


The Administrators statement was an avoidance of the fact that Burnden Leisure then owed that money to Ken Anderson who in turn owed it to the Estate of the late Eddie Davies. A journal entry was needed to correct the books, that's all. The kind of journal entry that is quite often left to the external accountants when they prepare the annual accounts which, of course, never happened. Cowgills hadn't been paid for the work they had done previously, for one thing.



The Administrators knew this too so what was behind their vague and lame excuse and did they expect to get pulled up on it? Plainly they didn't even though it was palpable but I don't propose going any further into that.


Your claim that there was some defect in Ken Anderson's right to be repaid is, I fear, based on speculation on your part. Plainly you will have had no access to any loan agreements between the relevant parties.



But this is all a sideshow. When all is said done, the purpose of the discourse is to help explain why Ken Anderson used other means available to him to ensure that he was not massively and unfairly exposed by the Administrators and that any delays in completing a deal with FV weren't the result of any unreasonable conduct or unreasonable claims on his part.



Even aside from the £5million, Ken says he was owed another £2.5m. Was he really and if so where did that money come from? His own coffers? I doubt it.



I have never claimed or thought for one moment that Ken Anderson was a saint who did nothing questionable but he did actually achieve quite a lot in very testing circumstances. Consistently maligned as a liar, I found that most of what he said was actually verifiable and accurate but he continues to be the subject of vile abuse not least in the Beeno and Wandererswallys, now featuring the great sage formerly of this parish, Lusty.



I do occasionally look back through 'Similar topics' to see who was consistently talking through their rear ends and who wasn't. Sadly, there never were many of the latter and most seem to have left Nuts behind long ago.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:'The Company's records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson as £1.578,042'  quite simply means that 'the records' that they refer to had not been updated to show that Ken Anderson had borrowed c. £5million from Eddie Davies to repay Blumarble who were about to foreclose on the debt.


That is clearly what happened and the Administrators knew it.
.

Thank you Bob.

How do you explain this then.

KA made only ONE claim for secured creditor status - in October 2018.

The Administrator, as you yourself pointed out to me, had noted he was a secured creditor but not for £7.5m has claimed by KA but only for £1,578,042.

Therefore this most have meant the records HAD to have been UPDATED by the time the Administrator was appointed on the 10th June, 2019, some nine months later?

If that is the case, then why was ED's claim for the additional £7.5m secured credit not also recorded, seeing it was made the month earlier?

It simply can't be "clear" as you state, that the records had not been updated and that is what happened because if they HADN'T been updated as you claim, then Anderson would be showing a ZERO secured creditor amount total - and he isn't.

I also question your legal logic in respect of this...

'the records' that they refer to had not been updated to show that Ken Anderson had borrowed c. £5million from Eddie Davies to repay Blumarble

KA is NOT BL, they are separate legal entities.

There is only TWO ways that legally that BL can become part of the transaction between ED and KA to settle BM.

1 - either ED or KA loaned their money to BL to pay BM, or,
2 - either ED or KA entered into a contract with BL to act as their agent to settle the outstanding loan to BM from BL.

Neither apparently were done.

Maybe there was every intent, I don't know, but this is a now an issue that is being dealt with by the High Court, in relation to the Insolvency Act and there is simply no evidence in law of any loan to BL from ED or KA or a contract which BL is a party of, in any agreement between ED and KA to settle the BM loan.

(And fwiw, you can't make a contract with yourself, so KA couldn't claim that with his BL hat on he had entered into contract with himself to act as BL's agent to settle with BM).

It might well be that some journal entry had not been done, or was awaiting the external accountants visit but there clearly was no money received by BL to fund the settlement of BL as clearly can be evidenced by BL bank statements!

I frequently used to argue with several on here that it wasn't a question of morals what KA should do in the running of a company, it is the question of law that is all that matters.

In law, unless you have proof to the contrary, BL was NOT a party to the settlement of BM by ED and KA and that is why the circa £7.5m secured creditor claims against BL by them simply (in law) did not exist.

I've no idea what you are talking about here...

Your claim that there was some defect in Ken Anderson's right to be repaid is, I fear, based on speculation on your part. Plainly you will have had no access to any loan agreements between the relevant parties.

Clearly I have no access to any loan agreements (do you?), I've never even claimed to have had - but if he had any sort of contract, then he would have legal rights for a 'consideration' accordingly.

What is Consideration?
Put simply, consideration is something that has value in the eyes of the law. It is an essential element of forming a valid contract. In practice, this means there must be an exchange of things that have value for a legally binding contract. It is one aspect of the contract forming process and is necessary for every new contract to be enforceable in law.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As for this...

But this is all a sideshow. When all is said done, the purpose of the discourse is to help explain why Ken Anderson used other means available to him to ensure that he was not massively and unfairly exposed by the Administrators and that any delays in completing a deal with FV weren't the result of any unreasonable conduct or unreasonable claims on his part.

I rather think what most likely happened was the Administrator informed him and EDT of the legality of the situation, which probably then lead to delays in completing with FV whilst KA and EDT resolved their contractual issue away from BL.

I agree totally with all of this -

I have never claimed or even thought that Ken Anderson was a saint who did nothing questionable but he did actually achieve quite a lot in very testing circumstances. Consistently maligned as a liar, I found that most of what he said was actually verifiable but he continues to be the subject of vile abuse not least in the Beeno and Wandererswallys, now featuring the great sage, formerly of this parish, Lusty.

Just to annoy everyone else for fun - Wanderlust repeatedly claimed that Anderson had raped and pillaged the club to the amount of £164m in order to enrich himself - which simply never existed (he'd not understood what the accounts were saying and refused to admit he had cocked up!!!).

And maybe I do talk out of my rear end from time to time, but if I do it is because I'm trying to understand what is happening and trying to put forward a logic that could fit the few facts that we do seem to know.

I've certainly no axe to grind with anyone.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:Just to annoy everyone else for fun - Wanderlust

So close. Almost a full day without mentioning him.

Maybe tomorrow will be the day?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Sluffy wrote:Just to annoy everyone else for fun - Wanderlust

So close. Almost a full day without mentioning him.

Maybe tomorrow will be the day?

Hahaha!!!

I did put that in on purpose but deliberately so to see who might be bonkers enough to bite.

To be honest I didn't expect anyone to do so as I figured out that most people wouldn't have the slightest interest about what Bob and I were saying to read through all that we have posted about an Administrators decision of four years ago, and those few who did would be intelligent enough to see the clearly deliberate joke.

Fair play to you though reading through 90% of a somewhat technical explanation on the subtly of compliance with the law as against intent (but none actual compliance deriving from that intention).

I didn't have you down as a follower of my works on these matters!

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

My word, Sluffy, you are proving to be a master of misinterpretation, misconstruction, misconception, misapprehension and misjudgement but I take my hat off to you for persistence.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:My word, Sluffy, you are proving to be a master of misinterpretation, misconstruction, misconception, misapprehension and misjudgement but I take my hat off to you for persistence.

You can keep your hat on Bob, no need to take it off as far as I'm concerned.

You've neglected to answered my question as to if there were simply missing journals to be entered that would explain all this, why then is KA showing as a secured creditor for £1.5m on the Administrators report?

Surely he shouldn't be if your explanation was correct?

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluffy wrote:

You can keep your hat on Bob, no need to take it off as far as I'm concerned.

You've neglected to answered my question as to if there were simply missing journals to be entered that would explain all this, why then is KA showing as a secured creditor for £1.5m on the Administrators report?

Surely he shouldn't be if your explanation was correct?
Your question seems naive, Sluffy, but I will deal with it.

The amount is what 'the records' showed according to the Administrators, in full knowledge of the fact that:

1. 'The records' did not disclose the true position
2. The balance sheet had not been updated/corrected to recognise the Blumarble repayment
3. EDT claimed to be owed c.£7million more than the records showed.
4. KA claimed to be owed £7.5million

Its striking how vague the Administrators were about KA's claim or who owed EDT £17million, the Admins descriptions having all the appearance of a convenient 'glossing over' of what these claims actually comprised.

But what does it all amount to? For starters it means that Ken Anderson was docked nearly £6m from the amounts he claimed to be owed, c.£5m for the Blumarble repayment and another £1m that remains unexplained.

As you say, according to Lusty and countless other nitwits, Ken Anderson had raped and pillaged the club, all of these dunderheads sustaining their ignorance from the pot-stirring stupidity of a media that had been useless on the financial affairs of BWFC for as long as I have taken an interest in them.

I would have thought that anyone with any sense would have asked why KA settled for £237K out of the £1.6million the Admins said he was owed or the £7.5 million KA claimed the true figure was.

I would conclude that it probably wasn't actually his money and everyone involved knew that.

P.S. If you would like to know more about Directors Loan Accounts (which this was) there's loads of advice on t'internet. The DLA will be credited when a director pays money into the company or settles a company liability from other personal  resources. In this case there must have been both but the Administrators chose to ignore the c.£5million settlement of the Blumarble debt from money personally borrowed by KA from Eddie Davies.

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

I don't know these people even if it sounds like they might know me:

'Bob, being the wise and savvy director that he is, will monitor his DLA monthly to make sure that he understands how much in debit or credit he might be'.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Tue Sep 19 2023, 11:27; edited 3 times in total

Whitesince63


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

boltonbonce wrote:For any newcomers to this thread, a synopsis. Surprised

I didn’t know I was being filmed. I was doing ok too until he gave me the brush off!! 🥴

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Very Happy
Not sure he was using that brush correctly.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

You can keep your hat on Bob, no need to take it off as far as I'm concerned.

You've neglected to answered my question as to if there were simply missing journals to be entered that would explain all this, why then is KA showing as a secured creditor for £1.5m on the Administrators report?

Surely he shouldn't be if your explanation was correct?
Your question seems naive, Sluffy, but I will deal with it.

The amount is what 'the records' showed according to the Administrators, in full knowledge of the fact that:

1. 'The records' did not disclose the true position
2. The balance sheet had not been updated/corrected to recognise the Blumarble repayment
3. EDT claimed to be owed c.£7million more than the records showed.
4. KA claimed to be owed £7.5million

Its striking how vague the Administrators were about KA's claim or who owed EDT £17million, the Admins descriptions having all the appearance of a convenient 'glossing over' of what these claims actually comprised.

But what does it all amount to? For starters it means that Ken Anderson was docked nearly £6m from the amounts he claimed to be owed, c.£5m for the Blumarble repayment and another £1m that remains unexplained.

As you say, according to Lusty and countless other nitwits, Ken Anderson had raped and pillaged the club, all of these dunderheads sustaining their ignorance from the pot-stirring stupidity of a media that had been useless on the financial affairs of BWFC for as long as I have taken an interest in them.

I would have thought that anyone with any sense would have asked why KA settled for £237K out of the £1.6million the Admins said he was owed or the £7.5 million KA claimed the true figure was.

I would conclude that it probably wasn't actually his money and everyone involved knew that.

Thanks Bob,

My question may well be naive but you still have not answered it.

You explained earlier that that...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:'The Company's records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson as £1.578,042' quite simply means that 'the records' that they refer to had not been updated to show that Ken Anderson had borrowed c. £5million from Eddie Davies to repay Blumarble who were about to foreclose on the debt.

However Anderson only ONCE registered to be a secured creditor - his claim being for £7.5m.

The Administer reported to the High Court that Anderson's claim was only for £1.75m and recorded it as such.

Clearly and contrary to your claim 'the records' HAD been updated.

Are you really claiming he deliberately LIED to the court by recording the amount £6m less than the true value???

You even admit yourself that you that can't explain why he underreported £1m of this £6m (BM accounting for the other £5m - or rather £4.4m which I recall the true settlement amount to be £4m plus interest).

Your narrative is based on a professional Insolvency Practitioner LYING to the High Court of the UK based on journal entry's that had not been done (which clearly had been done in order for the Administrator to have included an amount secured for KA in his report to court) and cannot even explain as to where £1m of this 'shortfall' has disappeared to!

My narrative is that the professional Insolvency Practitioner did his job honestly, reported to the High Court TRUTHFULLY on what was the Company's records showed (which INCLUDED a journal entry that had recorded KA's true security amount).

I'm not disputing the interactions between ED and KA to settle the BM loan, but merely stating that these events occurred separate to and away from BL.

Clearly the intention from ED and KA was some sort of agreement to make it appear that the transactions had gone through BL by registering charges on it in Sept/Oct 2018 - and if BL had not fallen into Administration within 12 months of the last charge being registered, that position would have stood.

That's why I now wonder if something similar happened earlier in respect of Holdsworth/ED somehow managing to secure BM charge on BL even though they loaned the money to Sports Shield BWFC Ltd.

Unfortunately BL didn't survive beyond a period of 12 months for the last secured creditor claim in Oct 2018 (no doubt it probably would have done somehow with ED's backing if he had not suddenly died) and thus exposed the books as to what they really were.

I'm not suggesting that anything dodgy had gone on with the sleight of hand to record the BM transaction appearing to go through BL books (or with Holdsworth's / ED / SSBWFC / BM, earlier) no doubt it simply amounted to the same thing that was agreed in how they settled the BM debt away from BL - but when the Administrator was appointed to report on what he found - he simply reported that the settlement of BM wasn't done through BL and accordingly the security claimed by ED and KA could not be reported to be as such.

Thus no conspiracy theory over why the Administrator acted to 'misrepresented' the transactions, no missing journal entries, no waiting for external accountants to record things 9 months after the event, no need for the Insolvency specialist to LIE to the High Court, etc, etc.

Just a simple and true statement reported to the court of what was actually found at BL on his arrival there.

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Flipping eck, Sluffy. Flummoxed, flailing, flannelling and floundering like a flatfish on a foreshore.

The penny never will drop, will it?

Carry on like this and I'll have to seriously consider putting you in the same pigeonhole as Lusty.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Flipping eck, Sluffy. Flummoxed, flailing, flannelling and floundering like a flatfish on a foreshore.

The penny never will drop, will it?

Bob, unless you are party to what went on, you only have a theory, I only have a theory too.

Your theory involves a conspiracy from a highly skilled and professional Insolvency expert, telling LIES to the UK's High Court, and relies on non recorded journal entries (a key one of which clear had taken place), no one capable with Burnden Leisure to be able to make such journal entry's even though they had nine months to do so, the absence of any bank statements to evidence that Burnden Leisure received any money to be able to settle the BlueMarble debt, and no contractual documentation that Burnden Leisure employed anyone as their agent to do so.

My theory is that the highly skilled and professional Insolvency expert simply told the truth to the UK's High Court as to what he actually found to be the case at Burnden Leisure directly following his appointment of being the Administrator there.

I think that my theory is far more plausible than yours.

AND fwiw, if my memory recalls correctly the bloke (whose name that escapes me) who Anderson appointed to run BL as his finance Director/CEO (who you spoke highly of), remained AFTER the Administration had started to HELP the Administrator by explaining to him all that had gone on during KA's tenure as owner AND also that the Administrator had reported that KA himself made himself available and helpful to him in answering/explaining all that had gone on within Burnden Leisure since he bought it along with Holdsworth from Eddie Davies!

It's pretty clear that the Administrator knew exactly what had gone on and simply reported it as such.

Why lie and contort himself otherwise???

What motive did he have to do so, if he actually did?

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Still not got your listening ears or thinking head on, I see.

It pays to be a bit more cautious with your language, Sluffy. There seems to have been a plan to get from A to B without worrying too much about the obstacles in the way or the route taken. I expect that's the way things get done in that industry, don't you?

Motive? They only get paid when they get to B

P.S. When summat ain't right, I usually know it ain't right. There's nowt clever about it but it does help to have a bit of experience.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 23 of 40]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 13 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 31 ... 40  Next

Reply to topic

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum