Ten Bobsworth wrote:Just stop and think for once, Sluffy. The Admins Report was imprecise and open to misinterpretation in circumstances where there should have been absolutely no room for doubt.
It ought to have sounded alarm bells. It did with me the moment I read it.
You seem to have been fooled by it and reached all manner of wrong conclusions which you seem to insist on repeating and expanding ad nauseam.
P.S. Its not a game.
P.P.S. The imprecision wasn't a minor issue. It was, in all probability, the most significant issue in the entire Administration.
Bob, it is a game to me, it's a game to me because whether you are right or wrong it changes nothing.
Wanderlust (I know) went on, and on, and on, and on, daily (even several times daily) for years about Brexit but could not seem to grasp that the world had moved on and the decision had been made and it was impossible to go back and change it - we had whether we liked it or not had to live with the consequences, no matter how bad they may end up being.
What happened four years ago - whether it was right or wrong - even if the ramifications are detrimental to the club and its current owners - are what they are and what have to be faced and dealt with - there's no going back.
Yes the Administrators report was imprecise, even I understood that (well at least the bit about the wording over the £7.5m - there may well be other stuff I didn't spot?) but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a cover up going on.
I've written reports that have been equally imprecise when I needed to protect and keep personal or confidential stuff away from the public domain. No doubt the Administrator also wrote confidential reports giving full and precise details to the Insolvency court who he was representing - I used to write confidential reports for the equivariant of the company board as full disclosure to them.
Have I been fooled by the Administrators report, I don't think so. I don't think so because I haven't approached the puzzle from that direction, I've tried to understand what the logic was for the apparent claims and rejections of them.
I've had a problem dating back to Sept/Oct 2018 (well before the Administrator appeared on the scene) as to how KA's charge was secured, to my simple mind there were no assets available to charge it to?
Yes I know I don't really understand charges and Directors loans but I was basing my logic on how much assets had BL got and how much of them are already in hock?
If the BM loan needed paying and there were £5m of assets free to secure against, why then did KA not simply get another BM loan type in order to pay off the current one?
Logically to me there could only be two reasons for this the first being there simply was nothing left to secure against that didn't already have a charge on it, or that no one was willing to touch BL with a barge pole as they didn't believe it would pay them back!
As for putting a second charge on the same assets, well I now know it to be this -
As a second-charge lender takes second-place security for its loan, they’ll also conduct an equity assessment. This essentially means getting an updated valuation of your properties and subtracting the difference between the valuation amount and the first-charge loan amount. The difference between the two is the available equity you have to use as security for a second-charge loan.So did Ken really do that and found there was actually a further £7.5m of assets to secure against AFTER ED had already secured his £7.5m as per his Sept 2018 charge?
I rather think not.
At this point maybe I can flip this around so that you might understand my point of view perhaps?
You say you reason for mistrusting the Administrator is based on his actions being imprecise and open to misinterpretation, well from where I stood and the limited knowledge I had, then to me the actions around KA claiming £7.5m security simply didn't stack up - and that was the nut I haven't been able to crack - still can't.
Ok you've told me (or rather inferred) that KA took out a loan to pay off BM and on taking on the loan created a DL - this I presume was the basis of his claimed £7.5m security in Oct 2018.
I guess when ED lent the money to KA that also was his basis of his claimed security the month earlier - Sept 18 (and thus a first charge)
How then can a lender and a borrower both secure the same money?
What is a charge?A ‘charge’ is a legal term used to describe the security that a lender has when it provides financing. How can they both claim to be providing financing that totals TWICE as much as the capital they started with?
I also have issues as to how they can even secure against BL.
I fully accept you know the day to day practice about such stuff, that ED can place a charge on BL even though the loan wasn't to BL but to KA (which also triggered the thought about BM placing a charge on BL when their loan wasn't to BL but to Holdsworth) and that KA created a DL when he received the loan from ED.
But when BL fell into Administration (think when the music stopped in a game of musical chairs and everything was frozen), did all the dealings (which were normal day to day stuff) actually comply with the Insolvency legislation that they are required to do?
So my line of reasoning based admittedly on not fully understanding both the accountancy side AND the finite detail of the Insolvency Act was that I found it less creditable that the qualified and experienced insolvency expert who did have full knowledge of both was less likely to act in some form of conspiratorial way (targeted at Anderson, if I read you correctly), than simply complied with the legislation.
That isn't me blindly believing the 'ones in charge', it isn't me being fooled by the Administrators report, it isn't me being some sort of blockhead, it's simply me being rational, logical and impartial and basing my views on the facts that I know - whilst openly admitting that I don't fully understand all the ins and outs of everything.
And finally fwiw to, my way at looking at things, BM had been settled by the time the Administrator was appointed - so was 'off' BL's books.
My logic would be to balance that off you can't have two separate people claiming that they both settled it - something needed to be done in order resolve this anomaly in order to precede with the Administration process - and whatever it was resulted in an agreement between EDT and KA in advance of the Administration to have separate Administrators from day one and NOT due to the Administrators report forcing KA to defend his position - which I think maybe is part of the basis to your conspiracy feelings.