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

Well good for Bonce if he understands more than blockhead me!

And, yes I did believe what the Administrator stated on his report to the High Court case...

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


...is it normal for official court representatives to lie in their reports to the High Court?

I don't believe so?

Anyway this...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:In this case you seem to have assumed that Fildraw were claiming £17million from Burnden Leisure on the basis of the Administrators statement of what Fildraw's belief was. But is that what Fildraw were really doing or really believed?

They were owed £10m by Burnden Leisure but what about the rest? Was it owed to Fildraw by Burnden Leisure or by Ken Anderson? It was one or the other not both.

If the money was loaned to KA to do with what he pleased then ED simply could not secure it against BL without some form of legal agreement.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Is it possible that there was an undisclosed arrangement by which Burnden Leisure were liable to repay Fildraw if Ken Anderson didn't? If there was it would be clearly documented and not a matter of belief or uncertainty.

So your belief is that he didn't so his secured charge of a further £7.5m to BL was false?

So where did the money go?

£5m paid off BM and KA received the £2.5m part of which he put £1.6m into BM and made his secured creditor claim for £7.5m in Oct 2018.

So I guess he could claim that he invested £7.5m into BL - PROVIDED THAT THIS CONTRACTUAL 'AGREEMENT' (with KA) IS COMPLIANT WITH THE INSOLVENCY LEGISLATION - as I may have already mentioned once or twice...

So yes this could potentially be the case with the Administrator striking off his claimed security.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:So what was going on? What was the motive behind all this ambiguity and other nonsense?

You'll have to draw your own conclusions but the effect on Ken Anderson and his family could have been catastrophic if Fildraw had decided to sue for the debt that Ken Anderson owed it without being able to rely on the legal safeguards Anderson's lawyers had set up in good faith.

So what was the intent of both ED and KA at the time of the loan and why did they structure it as they did?

BM had to be paid or they would start a winding up petition against BL.

Both ED and KA knew the financial position of BL was all but insolvent.

Why would KA risk £7.5m of his own money to save it? No he would not.

Why would he then seek a £7.5m loan off ED if he was never intended to be on the hook for this £7.5m from his own pocket???

Why didn't ED just pay BM directly and not involve KA at all.

Why didn't he just let BL fold - he must have known it would without him as he clearly understood KA would not put his hand and spend his personal wealth to save it.

All that went on seem to be some sort of elaborate charade to me simply to put ED's money into BL to pay off BM, with no intent for KA to be at any financial risk.

And quite frankly that is exactly how it ended, EDT took the hit as ED had intended that he himself would have taken.

I simply find it difficult to believe that the Administrator was really any part of this and KA and EDT simply mutually agreed to do a joint Administration to safeguard their own financial positions whilst the Administrator went through the books and unpicked the charade that had happened and ruled the way the charade was constructed and played out simply did not comply with the Insolvency legislation as it is required to have done.

You clearly see some malice in this somewhere.

Whether there was or wasn't its all gone now, lines ruled under it at as with Brexit, we all have to live with it and move on.



Maybe I'm missing something here but when a charge is made against assets doesn't the charge specify the amount of money loaned to the company?

If so and ED claimed he had put in the full £7.5m, then how could KA also claim that he'd loaned/invested a separate sum of £7.5m as well???

(Or visa versa).

Something is clearly amiss with the secured claims in Sept/Oct 2019.

They can't both be right - and ED got his in first!

Maybe its me that's missing something, Sluffy. If only I had done 'O' level Woodwork instead of Latin I might have understood why Eddie Davies wasn't too keen on lending another £5m to Burnden Leisure when he'd already lent it £185m without getting any of it back.

Maybe I would have understood that he didn't do that but lent it to Ken Anderson instead and that it would be Anderson that owed him the money not Burnden Leisure. And maybe I would have understood that it definitely was Ken Anderson that borrowed the £5m because that's what the legal document, signed a few days before Eddie died and filed at Companies House on 18 September 2018, confirmed.

Over 13,700 views now. The bots must love history.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Maybe its me that's missing something, Sluffy. If only I had done 'O' level Woodwork instead of Latin I might have understood why Eddie Davies wasn't too keen on lending another £5m to Burnden Leisure when he'd already lent it £185m without getting any of it back.

Maybe I would have understood that he didn't do that but lent it to Ken Anderson instead and that it would be Anderson that owed him the money not Burnden Leisure. And maybe I would have understood that it definitely was Ken Anderson that borrowed the £5m because that's what the legal document, signed a few days before Eddie died and filed at Companies House on 18 September 2018, confirmed.

Over 13,700 views now. The bots must love history.

Sticks and stones Bob, you can belittle me all you like, I'll just laugh at you like I do with all the others that get on my case.

Well Latin boy, answer me this, why would Ken take on a £7.5m personal loan to keep BWFC going when Davies had deliberately left debt in the company to prevent asset stripping?

Yes, I can now see that Davies loan Anderson the money against one of Andersons assets, namely BL - and I was wrong to look at it as though he was lending TO BL and securing against the assets due to that.

How do you know the Administrator wasn't telling the truth and that EDT did believe they had £17.5m secured?

After all we are now talking about a £5m loan facility (plus interest) and no longer the full £7.5m going into BL.

I assume the other £2.5m was secured against ICI Ltd.

Why would Saint Eddie put another £7.5m of his money on the line, how did he think Ken could pay him back from BL turning a profit of more than the £7.5m on BL before it finally succumbed to insolvency?  

There was hardly a hoard of prospective buyers beating a path to Eddie's door was there and that's why it ended up with Holdsworth for a £1.

What were they both thinking, why did both take a needless risk - Anderson to stare down the barrel of a £7.5m personal loss and Eddie pissing away another £7.5m of his kids inheritance - just to save BWFC - who's fans by that time generally hated the both of them anyway!

So yes, I am beginning to see what you had been getting at, Eddie lent Ken personally £7.5m, secured on Ken's assets being £5m on BL and presumably the £2.5m on ICI Ltd.

Ken claimed this to be a Directors Loan being a credit to him for £5m (for settling BM) and £2.5m secured on his charge of October 2018 (which incidentally doesn't state the amount on the papers filed).

(Indeed I vaguely remember now telling you about the £5m shown on the form when it first come out but had long forgotten all about it since).

Eddie hasn't placed a charge on BL of £5m because he loaned it to them/paid off BM on their bequest - he made the charge on BL (one of Anderson's assets) as part of his loan deal to him.

All this still begs the question if it was legally constructed in accordance to Insolvency legislation.


Anyway are you happy now - proved me wrong most likely.

What have you actually achieved though?

Nothing has changed, the Administrator did what he did, Eddie ended up paying the piper - as seemed likely he was always going to do, everyone generally hates Anderson still, Davies to a lesser extent and me and you as well.

Whatever the consequences of his actions have been still have to be lived out by those who ended up suffering - including Eddies own children who could have been millions more better off.

I've enjoyed playing the game and no doubt you will still carry your torch for whatever reasons you have for carrying it.

Enjoy keeping your count of the views on here, amazing how riveting this has been for all those thousands of real people (and certainly no bots at all) who have been following us so keenly!

For those who are now totally bemused, the simple fact is that Eddie lent Ken £5m to fund the Blumarble repayment. When the Administrators came along they decided that they had the authority to claim that nobody was to be credited with repaying Blumarble even though it was clear that Blumarble had been repaid from these funds. If there was some legal principle or precedent involved its not one that I have come across in my half a century as a qualified accountant but Sluffy knows best. He's an expert in these things.

It was all wrapped in a shroud of ambiguity and inexactitude but that was the top and bottom of it and it set the tone for the relationship between Anderson and the Admins. Anderson could not afford to back down and was 100% justified in not doing so.

FV were trying to effect the acquisition on minimal outlay with all the secured creditors being made to wait but it was Team Davies that took the biggest hit. They were owed £15m that we knew about and another £2m or £2.5m that was not previously known but they finally had to settle for £3m, most of it funded from COVID loans.

Has Sluffy done with his game playing yet? I wouldn't bank on it.

It's the internet Bob, I'll play on it when I choose, thank you very much.

Fwiw I have a vague recollection that at one time it was stated somewhere or other that ED was a secured creditor for £12.5m, which added to the £5m for BM would indeed have amounted to the £17.5m claimed by them - or purported by you to be claimed by them by the Administrator.

Still no explanation from you as to why Anderson took on a £7.5m loan (and the personal liability of it to pay it back) nor why Eddie presumably in your view, thought he would get the money he loan to Ken repaid?

Seems to me that the Administrator rejected your notion that a £7.5m Directors Loan was created in accordance with Insolvency legislation and struck it out.  However Ken had quite legally secured some of the money - £1.6m from it on BL, so had to allow this.

If he deemed the DL was constructed contrary to the Insolvency legislation then presumably all that flowed from the loan contract must fall as well.

As the loan was for £7.5m, it was easy to strike off ED claim for £5m on BL but I'm uncertain as to the legal explanation as to why he wrote down a further £2.5m from ED's secured creditor status, but it was needed to balance to the total of £7.5m

If the loan between ED and KA was structured on £5m secured against BM and £2.5m against ICI Ltd then maybe I can suggest a motive for KA - being that he simply was never at risk of a 'catastrophic' financial event effecting him or his family as you claim!

He simply never had the intention to repay it at all!

On default ED recoups £5m from BL and the shares in BL held by ICI Ltd, and Ken simply walks away from everything.

ED's motive I guess was to force KA out.

The haggling I suggest was more to do with stopping KA walking away with the legitimate claim he had to £1.6m security!

If I was to guess, Sluffy, I’d guess you are out of your depth.
But I’m not guessing, I know you are out of your depth. 
If you want to keep splashing around, carry on but don’t expect me to respond to every splash. I do actually have other ways to spend my time

Ten Bobsworth wrote:If I was to guess, Sluffy, I’d guess you are out of your depth.
But I’m not guessing, I know you are out of your depth. 
If you want to keep splashing around, carry on but don’t expect me to respond to every splash. I do actually have other ways to spend my time

Of course I'm out of my depth, I've repeatedly said so often enough, haven't I!

You can't put forward a motive for why KA took on a personal debt of £7.5m that he was never going to pay back and why Eddie loaned it him knowing that, can you?

I might well be out of my depth but I do understand that the motive is key to understanding why things happened - even if I couldn't properly understand what was exactly happening.

Anyway enjoy the other ways to spend your time and it looks as though I'll have to find another way to amuse myself too - shouldn't be hard though as the internet is full of nutjobs for me to laugh at.

Oh and fwiw, I did misremember the amount of ED's security before his Sept 2018 secured claim - it was £10m

This was the first set of accounts to take into consideration the full amount of money wiped off the books by former owner Eddie Davies, which now stands at £197.9million.
Davies waived a £5.2m payment last season, leaving his company with £10m in the club, explained in the accounts, as following: “The residual facility of £10m remains due to Fildraw Limited. This sum is only payable should certain payments not be made as agreed following the change in ownership in March, 2016.”
It is understood repayments are linked with potential promotion to the Premier League and any future change in ownership.

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

So good for you, you've been proved you were right once again...

...about the detail but you still can't explain the motive!

Have a nice day.

Thought it might interest you to know Bob that I troubled myself to have a look ED's charge against ICI and it is a loan to KA for a further £5m - and not for £2.5m as assumed (or at least I assumed so).

Of course you being the expert and me just splashing about out of my depth would have known that...

...or didn't you?

Seems Eddie lent Ken £10m not £7.5m as we had been talking about all this time.

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

Sorry Sluffy but you are still splashing around. Its the same £5million. 

You haven't quite got the hang of legal charges yet but what about woodwork? Did they teach you  'measure twice cut once?

Thank you, I didn't know that you could have security in more than one company unrelated to another company for the same loan and yes they did teach me to measure twice and cut once in woodwork although I had already been taught that previously by my father, who also taught me to respect and treat people as you would want them to respect and treat you.

He also taught me to laugh in the face of those who don't and who believe that they are in someway superior to you as a person - because they aren't - no one is.

Both good lessons to have learned in life, don't you think Bob?

Sluffy wrote:Thank you, I didn't know that you could have security in more than one company unrelated to another company for the same loan and yes they did teach me to measure twice and cut once in woodwork although I had already been taught that previously by my father, who also taught me to respect and treat people as you would want them to respect and treat you.

He also taught me to laugh in the face of those who don't and who believe that they are in someway superior to you as a person - because they aren't - no one is.

Both good lessons to have learned in life, don't you think Bob?

I think that I am better than you at some things, Sluffy, and that you are better than me at some things.

I do try to avoid holding myself out as being expert on things that I don't know much about. I think that's a good lesson.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Thank you, I didn't know that you could have security in more than one company unrelated to another company for the same loan and yes they did teach me to measure twice and cut once in woodwork although I had already been taught that previously by my father, who also taught me to respect and treat people as you would want them to respect and treat you.

He also taught me to laugh in the face of those who don't and who believe that they are in someway superior to you as a person - because they aren't - no one is.

Both good lessons to have learned in life, don't you think Bob?

I think that I am better than you at some things, Sluffy, and that you are better than me at some things.

I do try to avoid holding myself out as being expert on things that I don't know much about. I think that's a good lesson.

You ARE better than me at accounts and maybe many other things too, everybody is better at me at something or other and I'm no doubt better than you and everybody else at something or other also, even if it is only floundering about out of my depth.

But that is not my point.

I've not been trying to pretend I am an expert on private companies, or share issues, or Directors Loans, or contracts of security, or anything else as such -  God I've posted many times that I'm not and had zero knowledge of such up to the time that BWFC fell into Administration - I've simply tried to understand what led up to it doing so, and what was going on in the present in an attempt to understand what may be coming in the future.

I don't think there's anything wrong in trying your best to try to learn and understand things you didn't know about, do you Bob?

I know from my own professional training and career, that much of the claims said at the time (and since!) was just utter bollocks - if I may by way of example, Wanderlust for instance stated on here, that he was a Business Advisor, had a team of three groups of accountants working under him, and proclaimed quite vociferously and often that Anderson had 'raped and pillaged' the club of £164m and transferred the money for his own pocket - and people believed him!!!

Now I'm not turning this into a Wanderlust thing but clearly that was the level of  knowledge out there that people had at the time - and fed on.

I tried to explain stuff like this was bollocks based on the knowledge I had (which is specialised to the public sector).

I'm not stupid enough to self teach myself on how to suddenly become an expert as a Company Secretary in the private sector as well (they are two separate beasts but both are subject to work to a framework of legislation, rules and regulations) so struggled (still do) to understand exactly what had gone on / was currently going on, and tried to explain to anyone willing to listen to me that most of what they were hearing from the likes of Iles, Wanderlust and social media in general, was frankly wrong or at best misleading.

You have been unquestionably the only guiding light I have found in respect of your accountancy skills who has helped me to understand what little I have of what had happened - and I've repeatedly thanked you for that on here.

Now for reasons known only to yourself you decided to set me a challenge about the Administrators decision that occurred FOUR YEARS AGO and which everyone involved at the time have either died, moved away or long since forgotten about.

If you forgive me, in a similar vein as your bee in your bonnet about who paid for the Reebok.

These things clearly mean something to you and are personal for you - but not to the rest of us.

I don't know what message you are trying to give and who you are trying to say it too?

So in a way by attempting to answer your puzzle I've seemed to have been somehow dragged into your world of obsessiveness over these and others matters that clearly mean something to you, yet mean absolutely nothing at all to me.

I've simply tried to solve your puzzle because I enjoy a good puzzle and partly because I felt I owed you a debt of gratitude for your help on guiding me through what you have in respect of the accounts and historical backgrounds over many months.

I now sincerely wished that I hadn't bothered at all!

You've done nothing but go out of your way to taunt, belittle and humiliate me knowing that I freely stated I have little knowledge of the subject, that all I was doing was to attempt to put a logical narrative from the few facts I knew and base this narrative on likelihood rather than conspiracy.

For example if the Administrator strikes something out then he must have powers to do so; if someone appears to have had £7.5m of their money wiped off, why didn't they do something about it; if Eddie did not want to put anymore of his money into the club and Anderson was clearly not dipping into his private wealth to prop up the business, then why did Eddie loan Ken the money to do just that and Ken become personally liable for that money?

What reason would the Administrator want to lie in a document to the HIGH Court and why would he be part of some sort of conspiracy???

I don't think those thoughts are unreasonable, even if you might.

Yes, I certainly didn't have the knowledge to understand the accountancy side of it all but that doesn't stop me questioning the motives behind what the people had in acting the way they did.

A lot of good it has done me, although I have enjoyed stretching my brain a bit over the last week or so, on something I just thought was harmless fun.

Clearly it wasn't to you!

Fine if you want to slag me off - and you constantly have - it means nothing to me, I get that all the time on social media and I can dish it out to nutjobs too when they come to have a go at me - but all I've done here was simply to try and solve a puzzle you asked of me to do, done my best and failed (certainly on the accountancy side) but still believe the motives behind why Ken and Eddie did what they did still lay unanswered and probably the motive (and legality) behind why the Administrator did what he did too.

I played a game, I did my best, if I got it wrong so what - what more did you want of me?

The point I made Bob was about respect and not acting as though you believe yourself more superior than others, because you simply know something they don't, as you clearly do.

Sluffy wrote:I had already been taught that previously by my father, who also taught me to respect and treat people as you would want them to respect and treat you.

He also taught me to laugh in the face of those who don't and who believe that they are in someway superior to you as a person - because they aren't - no one is.

Where were we before splashing around High Street, Moss Street, paddling pools without number and riveting essays on company law and accountancy?

Oh yes I remember. It wasn't really Ken Anderson's fault that the Admin took so long and it wasn't Team Anderson that leaked that the deal had been done before anyone asked them whether they agreed.

What else has been proven. For one thing, the fact that Penelope Wilton had a few admirers on Nuts proved that there are Nutters with discerning taste despite any rumours to the contrary.

Next I'd like to talk a bit more about Hilary Stonefrost, FIBS and £7.5m. Lets see how the bots like that.

But before we get to Ms Stonefrost, I thought I'd take a look at what
Penelope Wilton was doing these days. I found this:

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

As its twenty years since the Queen Mother died why would anyone be interested? Its no laughing matter and water under the bridge isn't it?

Does anyone remember Burnden Billy? I do.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Where were we before splashing around High Street, Moss Street, paddling pools without number and riveting essays on company law and accountancy?

Oh yes I remember. It wasn't really Ken Anderson's fault that the Admin took so long and it wasn't Team Anderson that leaked that the deal had been done before anyone asked them whether they agreed.

Bob,

I've already explained (frequently) that I WASN'T an expert, I didn't know how things like Directors Loans worked, how security charges for one loan can be charged against multiple non related companies and a ton of other specialised stuff.

I told you that I've tried to approach the puzzle logically by trying to construct a narrative that could explain what might have happened based on the very limited knowledge I had.

I was attempting to solve a puzzle, I was playing a game, how do you expect me or anyone else to know what the answer was without making some guesses, speculations, assumptions, shots in the dark???

I have explained why I did what I did, now how about you explaining why you have constantly and ceaselessly disrespected me and everybody else simply because we don't know what went on and don't haven't the skills or knowledge that you've acquired over your fifty years career to do so?

Why do you believe yourself a better person than me, Norpig, Iles, even Wanderlust and everybody else who you've ceaselessly ridiculed, belittled, and castigated just because you are a better accountant than us?

You believe and act as that you are somehow superior to us.

You are NOT.

As an accountant you are great, as a man you've shown absolutely no respect to anyone on.

Sluffy wrote:I've not been trying to pretend I am an expert on private companies, or share issues, or Directors Loans, or contracts of security, or anything else as such -  God I've posted many times that I'm not and had zero knowledge of such up to the time that BWFC fell into Administration - I've simply tried to understand what led up to it doing so, and what was going on in the present in an attempt to understand what may be coming in the future.

I don't think there's anything wrong in trying your best to try to learn and understand things you didn't know about, do you Bob?


I'm not stupid enough to self teach myself on how to suddenly become an expert as a Company Secretary in the private sector as well (they are two separate beasts but both are subject to work to a framework of legislation, rules and regulations) so struggled (still do) to understand exactly what had gone on...


So in a way by attempting to answer your puzzle I've seemed to have been somehow dragged into your world of obsessiveness over these and others matters that clearly mean something to you, yet mean absolutely nothing at all to me.


You've done nothing but go out of your way to taunt, belittle and humiliate me knowing that I freely stated I have little knowledge of the subject, that all I was doing was to attempt to put a logical narrative from the few facts I knew and base this narrative on likelihood rather than conspiracy.

For example if the Administrator strikes something out then he must have powers to do so; if someone appears to have had £7.5m of their money wiped off, why didn't they do something about it; if Eddie did not want to put anymore of his money into the club and Anderson was clearly not dipping into his private wealth to prop up the business, then why did Eddie loan Ken the money to do just that and Ken become personally liable for that money?

What reason would the Administrator want to lie in a document to the HIGH Court and why would he be part of some sort of conspiracy???

I don't think those thoughts are unreasonable, even if you might.

Yes, I certainly didn't have the knowledge to understand the accountancy side of it all but that doesn't stop me questioning the motives behind what the people had in acting the way they did.

A lot of good it has done me, although I have enjoyed stretching my brain a bit over the last week or so, on something I just thought was harmless fun.

Clearly it wasn't to you!

Fine if you want to slag me off - and you constantly have - it means nothing to me, I get that all the time on social media and I can dish it out to nutjobs too when they come to have a go at me - but all I've done here was simply to try and solve a puzzle you asked of me to do, done my best and failed (certainly on the accountancy side) but still believe the motives behind why Ken and Eddie did what they did still lay unanswered and probably the motive (and legality) behind why the Administrator did what he did too.

I played a game, I did my best, if I got it wrong so what - what more did you want of me?

The point I made Bob was about respect and not acting as though you believe yourself more superior than everyone else

What did I want of you, Sluffy?

That's quite simple, I wanted you to put your listening ears and thinking head on.

As you were quite determined not to, you opened yourself up, not to abuse, but satire.

I thought I was quite patient before resorting to parody. It did remind me of Martin and Paul in Ever Decreasing Circles though.

 Don't take it all too seriously; its only t'internet.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:What did I want of you, Sluffy?

That's quite simple, I wanted you to put your listening ears and thinking head on.

As you were quite determined not to, you opened yourself up, not to abuse, but satire.

I thought I was quite patient before resorting to parody. It did remind me of Martin and Paul in Ever Decreasing Circles though.

 Don't take it all too seriously; its only t'internet.

Bob,

I'M not the one taking it seriously!

I'M not the one with the obsession.

I'M not the one who can't let go of whatever it is that has upset you years ago in the past and move on with your life.

I'M not the one claiming to be satirising and parodying, when what you are actually doing is deliberately belittling and humiliating folk and clearly believing yourself to be somehow superior to everyone else.

...that's YOU not me!

Sluffy wrote:

Bob,

I'M not the one taking it seriously!

I'M not the one with the obsession.

I'M not the one who can't let go of whatever it is that has upset you years ago in the past and move on with your life.

I'M not the one claiming to be satirising and parodying, when what you are actually doing is deliberately belittling and humiliating folk and clearly believing yourself to be somehow superior to everyone else.

...that's YOU not me!

If you say so, Sluffy.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Bob,

I'M not the one taking it seriously!

I'M not the one with the obsession.

I'M not the one who can't let go of whatever it is that has upset you years ago in the past and move on with your life.

I'M not the one claiming to be satirising and parodying, when what you are actually doing is deliberately belittling and humiliating folk and clearly believing yourself to be somehow superior to everyone else.

...that's YOU not me!

If you say so, Sluffy.

I do say so.

After all it's there for all to see!

Not only on this site either...