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

Well over 14,000 views now says this thread is more popular with bots than the ST.

I do hope that Sluffy's got over his hissy fit. For someone who isn't really interested, he does seem to have contributed an extraordinary number of words to this thread even if much of it has recently been misunderstanding, misinterpreting and generally muddying the waters.

But for those who would like to understand it all a bit better there are essentially two ways of selling a business; one is to sell the shares, the other is to sell the assets to a buyer who sets up a new company.

In 2016, it was a share sale when Anderson and Holdsworth bought 94.5% of Burnden Leisure's shares for £1. In 2019, FV agreed to buy the assets of Burnden Leisure for the sum of £28.5million.

It does make quite a difference but it seems to me that Sluffy hadn't fully grasped it otherwise he wouldn't have been as confused as he clearly was over the legal charges. Eddie wanted his £5m loan to Ken Anderson secured whether there was an asset sale or a share sale. There was nothing doubtful or unusual about that.

FV haven't paid £28.5m and won't be doing but that's another story. It has been referred to previously but one thing  is for sure, anyone relying on the Beeno or Wandererswallys for their info have virtually no chance of grasping it.

Bob why do you do this?

Of course I know the difference between selling a company and selling the asset of a company.

What happened was that BWFC which was an assets of Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company Ltd, was sold off to FV and BWFAC Ltd is now in the process of being liquidated.

Of course I know that FV hadn't settled in full with all the creditors in Burnden Leisure, and its subsidiary companies which included BWFAC and Bolton (Whites) Hotel when they completed their purchase with the Administrators, and part of the deal was for Eddie, Warburton and PBP's secured credit to be in effect transferred over from those companies to FV, FVWL Football Ltd and FVWL Hotel Ltd.

The money loaned to KA to settle BM was prior to the purchase by FV and therefore any security at that time could only have been on BL (specifically BWFAC Ltd) and for which the Administrator ruled at the time of his appointment and prior to the sale to FV mounted to a grand total of £10,050,000 and not circa £17.5m.

It would therefore be the £10m debt that FV took on (along with Warburton and PBP's debts as well) with the purchase.

Jesus I've been constantly talking about exactly these things on this and other threads for the last FOUR YEARS with you in precisely these terms so why are you pretending otherwise now?

Why again are you belittling me and implying that I know nothing?

And if you think I'm having a 'hissy fit' then you quite clearly don't know me - a laughing fit would be much more nearer the mark, as I'm constantly amazed and amused why people like you and Wanderlust (yes his name again) do stuff like this - you to belittle, him to lie - because of your respective obsessiveness's over things that happened years ago and can no longer be changed no matter how much you both would wish they could?

Move on with your life for God sake Bob, let whatever it is that has been eating away at you go.

You were being ridiculous, Sluffy, but would have none of it.

You could have laughed it off but wouldn't. Now you are trying to turn it round into it all being somebody else's fault (or obsession).

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:3

Be careful there Bob or else Sluffy will put you in the Wanderlust & 63 category.

karlypants wrote:Be careful there Bob or else Sluffy will put you in the Wanderlust & 63 category.

I'm going to start sticking up for him now because there are a lot of things Sluffy has got right that not a lot of folk have and he is good at looking stuff up.

But if he wants to take me on my turf, he's going to come unstuck. He ought to know that by now.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:You were being ridiculous, Sluffy, but would have none of it.

You could have laughed it off but wouldn't. Now you are trying to turn it round into it all being somebody else's fault (or obsession).

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:3

I'm simply telling the truth Bob.

Of course I knew about what I've just posted above - we've discussed them many times, so why make out that I didn't?

I'm not turning anything around, I simply can't understand why you feel the need to put me down all the time and on this occasion for something that patently isn't true?

If you think I'm a thicko fair enough but no need to make stuff up to do so.

And you think you aren't obsessed and yet you've just gone out of your way to resurrect another thread about something that happened FOUR YEARS AGO and which nobody commented upon it at the time or since!!!

Actions speak louder than words - Mark Twain

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

karlypants wrote:Be careful there Bob or else Sluffy will put you in the Wanderlust & 63 category.

I'm going to start sticking up for him now because there are a lot of things Sluffy has got right that not a lot of folk have and he is good at looking stuff up.

But if he wants to take me on my turf, he's going to come unstuck. He ought to know that by now.

Is that what you think???

Of course I'm not taking you on, on your own turf, why would I, I'm not stupid.

You set me a puzzle you KNEW I couldn't answer, so the only way I could attempt it was NOT by the accountancy route - you could blind me with science anytime you wanted if you chose to (even if by chance I was on the right track!) so I simply had to approach it another way and that was trying to  understand the logic and motives behind what might have happened.

I've listed my thoughts out, such as - was it logical that a representative of the High Court, 'lied' in his report to the High Court, was it logical that someone who on the face of it had lost £7.5m because of that 'lie' did nothing about it, was it logical for Anderson to take on a personal debt of £5m from Eddie to put into the company and risk the cost to himself if he couldn't repay it on time, was it logical for Eddie to loan more of his wealth to someone who clearly wasn't prepared to put his own money at risk to keep the company going, why did he think he would be repaid in full?

What was the Administrators motive to lie, what was Ken's motive to take on a £5m (£7.5m?) personal loan when he clearly couldn't pay it back through BL, what was Eddie's motive lending him this, knowing that?

Was it all a 'conspiracy' by the Administrator to screw Anderson as you seemed to insinuate or more logically not a conspiracy at all and merely the Administrator applying Insolvency legislation to what he found during the process of his Administration?

Christ you've hammered me non stop since I started PLAYING THIS GAME (because solving a meaningless puzzle of four years ago - when even if you are absolutely correct in what you say happened - won't change a thing!) - is all it is to me!!!

I'm not stepping on 'your turf' at all!!!

I was simply asking aloud reasonable questions to myself and trying to solve the puzzle by seeing if I could work it out from logic and motives alone.

I was simply PLAYING A GAME FFS - NOT having a pop at you, if that's what you seemed to somehow have believed???

The other thread is interesting in that it tells us more about the relationship between Ken Anderson and the Admins and how the Admins seemed to have a sympathetic ear at the Beeno which had been successfully promoting a campaign of hatred against Ken Anderson on doubtful grounds for quite some time.

Your own recent comments have been ridiculously foolish but plainly you aren't able to see that. Its sad but there we are.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The other thread is interesting in that it tells us more about the relationship between Ken Anderson and the Admins and how the Admins seemed to have a sympathetic ear at the Beeno which had been successfully promoting a campaign of hatred against Ken Anderson on doubtful grounds for quite some time.

Your own recent comments have been ridiculously foolish but plainly you aren't able to see that. Its sad but there we are.

Feel free to think whatever you want Bob.

I neither said or posted anything I'm ashamed of, I stand by all I've done - even the bits I got wrong about the accountancy side because when I said them they were the best logic I could come up with at the time and have openly acknowledged since, when corrected by you, that I was wrong.

If you aren't obsessed with something that happened FOUR YEARS ago then you have a very strange way of showing that you aren't by constantly harping back to it.

Everybody else involved has long since moved on from it all.

Sluffy wrote:

Feel free to think whatever you want Bob.

I neither said or posted anything I'm ashamed of, I stand by all I've done - even the bits I got wrong about the accountancy side because when I said them they were the best logic I could come up with at the time and have openly acknowledged since, when corrected by you, that I was wrong.

If you aren't obsessed with something that happened FOUR YEARS ago then you have a very strange way of showing that you aren't by constantly harping back to it.

Everybody else involved has long since moved on from it all.

No they haven’t 
This was resurrected recently on Nuts when it was resurrected in the Beeno and Wandererswallys with all the same vile abuse.
I am sorry but I do think you suffer from self-delusion at times.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Feel free to think whatever you want Bob.

I neither said or posted anything I'm ashamed of, I stand by all I've done - even the bits I got wrong about the accountancy side because when I said them they were the best logic I could come up with at the time and have openly acknowledged since, when corrected by you, that I was wrong.

If you aren't obsessed with something that happened FOUR YEARS ago then you have a very strange way of showing that you aren't by constantly harping back to it.

Everybody else involved has long since moved on from it all.

No they haven’t 
This was resurrected recently on Nuts when it was resurrected in the Beeno and Wandererswallys with all the same vile abuse.
I am sorry but I do think you suffer from self-delusion at times.

Maybe I do suffer from self-delusion but I'm still quite certain that everybody INVOLVED at the time - namely Eddie Davies (deceased), Ken Anderson (resides in Switzerland and Monte Carlo), Paul Appleton (now a Partner in Begbies Traynor and Arsenal Season Ticket holder) and Andrew Hoskins (Head of Quantuma's London Office and recently Administrator at Derby County), have all long since drawn a line under it and moved on with their life's.

I certainly don't remember any of those Neanderthals who populate ww and the demented from the Bolton News comment sections played any part in the Administration.

The only looney involved in any way was Laurence Bassini, who bizarrely stuck his nose in towards the end and caused a ruckus and a great deal of annoyance but even he's moved on and has since featured in a ladyboy video from south east Asia, and trying to buy Birmingham City before Tom Brady and his mates rocked up and bought it for themselves.

God help you Bob, if you really do care what the crazies think about Eddie and Ken.

Oh and fwiw, this is Appleton's testimonial on Begbies website

Do you still believe he told lies to the High Court just to stitch up Ken?

Seems he has a hell of a lot to lose if he did and he got found out!

Biography

A Chartered Accountant since 1989 and a Licenced Insolvency Practitioner since 1996, Paul enjoyed a meteoric rise through the ranks of David Rubin & Partners from tea-boy to tea-man – otherwise known as Managing Partner. After he took stewardship of the firm in 2002, it grew from a North London family firm to become a leading boutique insolvency and corporate recovery practice with a number of high-profile appointments, which brought BTG to their door in 2021.

Paul has assisted numerous individuals and companies in all walks of life, who have found themselves in invidious positions. He has been there to help professional football clubs and their owners, property and retail empires, IT and media moguls, multiple fashion houses and even a cheese-powered biogas plant! Paul’s clients are not limited to the UK – he has a plethora of contacts across Europe, North America and the rest of the world, enabling him to deal with complex structures including an international Ponzi scheme. Paul is always able to provide creative solutions for his clients.

In the fleeting moments between rescuing a business or pursuing a miscreant, you will find Paul engrossed in the worlds of film, theatre and music. He also has first-hand experience of life’s ups and downs having supported Arsenal Football Club as a season ticket holder since the age of four.

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

The penny will never drop with you Sluffy but the fact is that Ken Anderson borrowed £5m from Eddie Davies, used it to repay Blumarble as a loan from KA to Burnden Leisure and secured that loan using the normal legal procedures.

The further fact is that the Administrator, for whatever reason, decided that he need not recognise the £5m debt to Ken Anderson at all or the security that had been legally placed on it.

Googling and typing, in pursuit of some irrelevance, is not a substitute for using your noddle, but if that's the way you like it ......

Anyroad, the 'creative solutions' didn't seem to work out whilst KA was in the frame and the Admins didn't seem too happy about it for some reason.

Maybe Ken's solutions were just that bit more creative than the Admins.

Over 14,300 views now. I wonder if the bots are looking for 'creative solutions'.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Over 14,300 views now. I wonder if the bots are looking for 'creative solutions'.

Never mind that, what are they looking for on my thread?

There lies madness.

boltonbonce wrote:
Never mind that, what are they looking for on my thread?

There lies madness.

You don't think, Boncey, that they might be Arsenal supporters engrossed in the worlds of film, theatre

and music who come on Nuts as a sort of placebo for their anxieties and their first-hand experience of life’s ups and downs.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The penny will never drop with you Sluffy but the fact is that Ken Anderson borrowed £5m from Eddie Davies, used it to repay Blumarble as a loan from KA to Burnden Leisure and secured that loan using the normal legal procedures.

The further fact is that the Administrator, for whatever reason, decided that he need not recognise the £5m debt to Ken Anderson at all or the security that had been legally placed on it.

Googling and typing, in pursuit of some irrelevance, is not a substitute for using your noddle, but if that's the way you like it ......

Anyroad, the 'creative solutions' didn't seem to work out whilst KA was in the frame and the Admins didn't seem too happy about it for some reason.

Maybe Ken's solutions were just that bit more creative than the Admins.

You are wrong Bob.

I don't need any penny to drop to understand that a deal was agreed for Eddie to loan Ken the £5m to settle BM and for the loan to be secured on BM and the Administrator to strike the loan out, the question is WHY he struck the loan off, what was his motive for doing so, was the way the loan constructed with Anderson deemed unlawful in terms of Insolvency legislation that the Administer had to rule on?

The loan from Eddie to Ken had two sides to it, was there an illegality on the way Anderson part of the equation was constructed, that caused the WHOLE contract to be voided?

If so that would mean the contract never existed.

That would mean that even if Eddie had secured the £5m quite legally it would still have to be struck out because the contract itself was deemed illegal and the 'remedy' in law was put things back to how they were before the contract existed.

Bob, you've just said...

...the Administrator, for whatever reason, decided that he need not recognise the £5m debt to Ken Anderson at all or the security that had been legally placed on it.

...YOU DON'T KNOW WHY the Administrator did what he did.

Because of this you THINK it was some sort of CONSPIRACY.

I don't know why the Administrator did what he did either but the difference is that I've put forward a narrative which could be that he did so LEGALLY.

Neither of us KNOW which it is, or even if there was another reason entirely.

I might be wrong, it may be that the Administrator was bent, the High Court turned a blind eye because they wanted to screw Anderson for what he did ten years previously or whatever you conspiracy theory is.

You can't (or won't) give any explanation (motive) as to why Anderson would put himself in personal debt to Eddie to save BL/BWFC when it is abundantly clear that Ken never intended to risk his personal wealth on BL/BWFC.

You can't (or won't) give any explanation (motive) as to why Eddie believed Ken would ever pay him back - and if not the net result would simply then be that he loaned yet another £5m of his fortune to BL/BWFC that he would ever likely to see again.

You can't (or won't) give any explanation (motive) as to why the Administrator should risk his personal reputation by reporting his lies to the High Court.


Christ you like to bang on about me not using my noodle, not having my thinking head on or using my listening ears yet you can't give any motive as to why any of the three main players - Eddie, Ken, the Administrator - did what they did in the deliberate ways that they did so.

Seems to me you don't practice what you preach.

There is a reason (motive) behind everything that is done deliberately, fair play to you if you've worked out the mechanics of what occurred but the bit that you are missing and which would unlock the puzzle correctly is understanding the motive why they all did what they did.

It is all about MOTIVE, INTENT and LEGALITY not solely just the accountancy side of things that you are completely locked into.

Still splashing around I see, Sluffy. I hope you've got a nice fluffy towel to dry off.

I'm commenting on the facts, Sluffy. I'm not commenting on what the motives were except that I don't think it had anything to do with sex, drugs or rock and roll but it might have had something to do with MONEY. Like trying to make some or not lose some.


The Administrators made no mention of any legal reason at all for not reflecting the facts of the commercial arrangements that were made and clearly documented but there was a strong element of vagueness and imprecision in their statement along with an unusual inference that there might be a bookkeeping issue (as if it somehow made a difference).

Some might think it a 'creative solution'. I couldn't possibly comment except that, whatever it was, it didn't work and they didn't seem happy about it.

Do you know what is meant by the term 'creative solutions', Sluffy? I do. I expect Boncey might too.

No Bob you are commenting on the accountancy mechanics not the actual facts of what happened and why - you are interpreting from the 'results' of what happened - there is a difference.

Your 'facts' are leading you to a conspiracy theory but the real 'facts' may lead to some place else such an illegality of the contract between Eddie and Ken and a voidance of it.

Once again you have avoided answering why Anderson took on the jeopardy of a personal loss of millions to himself and why Eddie risked a further chunk of his millions in loaning it to him.

I'm sure most things to do with a commercial companies have to do with money, but they also are required to comply with the law and the Administrator did not strike out the claims of millions of pounds of security on a mere whim of his just so he could come up with a 'creative solution' and cause him to lie to the High Court for doing so.

Maybe he did and you are right.

But then again maybe he had just cause in law to do what he did and did everything by the book and had no reason to lie in his report to the High Court.

If you want to believe in conspiracy then fine, if the idiots on ww and Bolton News comment section want to believe Anderson was a crook, then that's fine too - I simply don't care what people want to believe in - I'm more interested in the proof behind what people DID and up to now no one - not even you - can prove your case...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The further fact is that the Administrator, for whatever reason, decided that he need not recognise the £5m debt to Ken Anderson at all or the security that had been legally placed on it.