You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Blumarble - are they in financial difficulty?

Blumarble - are they in financial difficulty?

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
It's always struck me as odd why Holdsworth with no apparent money fought so, so hard to buy the club.

The first thing he did when he got his hands on it was to sign for a £5 million loan with the clubs assets secured against the loan.

But no normal high street bank would possibly take on the risk of such a loan, so one of these high risk, high interest rate type businesses got involved - Blumarble but who are they?

Well Companies house seem to tell us it is two Essex blokes, Mr Henson and Mr Wilson who seem to be its Directors.

Interestingly whilst having a look at what Companies House publically tells us, Blumarble itself seemed to have charges set against themselves for the last two consecutive months.

I've no idea what it is about but the best stab I can seem to make is that a bank - Investec Bank PLC - as been taken on to buy and sell assets of Blumarble and the charge is to indemnify themselves against any loss they may make.

Seems odd the need to have to do this and also for two consecutive months.

I guess - and it is just a guess - that if Blumarble were the ones who really bought the club - with Holdsworth as the front man - and that they have run into financial difficulties and not keeping their end up of the partnership - then maybe Anderson (if he really has money) has turned the taps off not to get shut of Holdsworth but to try to get out of the Blumarble loan that seems to be costing the club a fortune.

I could be talking out of my arse for all I know but the fact is that Blumarble has had two charges set against it for the last two months and they aren't there for fun - so something as happened/is happening very recently.

The link -

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

whatsgoingon

avatar
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
While some of what you say is a stretch I have to admit that the timing of Anderson going after Holdsworth's shares with such vigour and the appearance of these charges (good find by the way) seems more than mere coincidence.
However it could prove problematic as we are waiting for Bluemarble to ratify the share purchase, hopefully DH is involved with them and can get it pushed through quickly, but if Bluemarble are in the shit depending on the terms of the loan they may be entitled to claim the loan back early, or seize assets.
It does all seem dodgy and underhand and like you said before KA despite his colourful past is showing as, if not the most trustworthy at least the most credible.

Bread2.0

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Those charges aren't against Blu Marble, they're charges that they've filed themselves.

And from my rudimentary understanding of how it works, that means they've started the legal ball rolling for when BWFC inevitably defaults on the loan repayment and they want the stadium as compo.

Which is an altogether very different kettle of fish.

We need Rammy really...

King Bill

avatar
David Lee
David Lee
Yes, good find sluffy.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Bread2.0 wrote:Those charges aren't against Blu Marble, they're charges that they've filed themselves.

And from my rudimentary understanding of how it works, that means they've started the legal ball rolling for when BWFC inevitably defaults on the loan repayment and they want the stadium as compo.

Which is an altogether very different kettle of fish.

We need Rammy really...

Unless I'm reading things wrong the person entitled to the charges are Investec Bank PLC (Irish Branch) - not Blumarble (why would Blumarble not set aside provision for a loss within their own accounting procedures anyway rather than set an external charge against their own assets via another unrelated business organisation ???)

Also why do two charges a month apart?

If the bank is indemnifying themselves against loss it sounds to me (note this is all guess work from me), that they have given some money to Blumarble in return for assets to sell - and if the sale doesn't cover their money (and presumably charges, costs, etc), then the charge is there against other assets of Blumarble, to cover themselves in full.

If I'm right, then Blumarble obviously had planned for this cash injection to be for a month's cover only - hence why the need to do it all over again for a second consecutive month?

Sounds a bit like an urgent need to sell and not a planned sale at the best time in the market.

So whatever it was that they had planned did not go as they thought and also not happened when it should have.

Now let me speculate more - didn't Anderson plan to have his public Q and A and postpone it last month - he wouldn't call a Q and A if he hadn't got what he wanted first - so maybe Blumarble expect something (money!) and Anderson for whatever reason did not complete on Holdsworth shares - hence a further month delay?

All speculation and guess work on my part and not a shred of evidence - but it does make a nice conspiracy theory if nothing else I think.

And yes we do need Rammy or anyone else financially knowledgeable to give us a better understanding of what might be happening than my flights of fancy.

observer


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Sluffy wrote:
Bread2.0 wrote:Those charges aren't against Blu Marble, they're charges that they've filed themselves.

And from my rudimentary understanding of how it works, that means they've started the legal ball rolling for when BWFC inevitably defaults on the loan repayment and they want the stadium as compo.

Which is an altogether very different kettle of fish.

We need Rammy really...

Unless I'm reading things wrong the person entitled to the charges are Investec Bank PLC (Irish Branch) - not Blumarble (why would Blumarble not set aside provision for a loss within their own accounting procedures anyway rather than set an external charge against their own assets via another unrelated business organisation ???)

Also why do two charges a month apart?

If the bank is indemnifying themselves against loss it sounds to me (note this is all guess work from me), that they have given some money to Blumarble in return for assets to sell - and if the sale doesn't cover their money (and presumably charges, costs, etc), then the charge is there against other assets of Blumarble, to cover themselves in full.

If I'm right, then Blumarble obviously had planned for this cash injection to be for a month's cover only - hence why the need to do it all over again for a second consecutive month?

Sounds a bit like an urgent need to sell and not a planned sale at the best time in the market.

So whatever it was that they had planned did not go as they thought and also not happened when it should have.

Now let me speculate more - didn't Anderson plan to have his public Q and A and postpone it last month - he wouldn't call a Q and A if he hadn't got what he wanted first - so maybe Blumarble expect something (money!) and Anderson for whatever reason did not complete on Holdsworth shares - hence a further month delay?

All speculation and guess work on my part and not a shred of evidence - but it does make a nice conspiracy theory if nothing else I think.

And yes we do need Rammy or anyone else financially knowledgeable to give us a better understanding of what might be happening than my flights of fancy.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!

Marmion by Walter Scott (1808)

Bread2.0

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
If your gut tells you that you need to punctuate every third line with "..and this is just me guessing because I haven't got a clue really" (or words to that effect), it should give you an indication that you're on stony ground as far as facts are concerned and you're probably straying into the realms of wild speculation.

Go and research "Charges logged with Companies House and what that means."

I did.

And it gave a clearer indication of what's going on and it stopped me speculating wildly about what may or may not be happening at Bolton.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Bread2.0 wrote:If your gut tells you that you need to punctuate every third line with "..and this is just me guessing because I haven't got a clue really" (or words to that effect), it should give you an indication that you're on stony ground as far as facts are concerned and you're probably straying into the realms of wild speculation.

Go and research "Charges logged with Companies House and what they mean."

I did.

And it gave a clearer indication of what's going on and it stopped me speculating wildly about what may or may not be happening at Bolton.

And you call me patronising!

I may not know much but I know enough that if I ever wanted to try and belittle someone then at the very least I'd make sure that basic facts are correct - charges are 'lodged', not 'logged'.

As far as I understand it -

A charge (or mortgage) is the security a company gives for a loan.

So are you seriously saying that Blumarble loaned itself some money and secured this loan by setting a charge upon itself???

Bread2.0 wrote:Those charges aren't against Blu Marble, they're charges that they've filed themselves.

If so why is the person entitled to the charge Investec Bank PLC?

My grasp of events is that Blumarble have employed the bank to act on its behalf to buy or sell assets on its behalf and the 'charge' is made by the bank on Blumarble to indemnify itself in case of any loss it might encounter whilst doing so.

I suspect however that it relates more to the sale side of things for Blumarble's liquidity position, than buying anything.

As for being on 'stony ground as far as facts are concerned' and 'straying into the realms of wild speculation', well it seems I'm not on my own -

Bread2.0 wrote:...and while I'm having a rant, there's still a big part of me that thinks that Eddie Davies was behind Sports Shield all along.

Is it inconceivable that he got someone to approach Holdsworth and suggest that he put a bid in for the club?

Maybe you should 'Go and research' the meaning of the word hypocrite.

Bread2.0

avatar
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Yeah, right, whatever.....


I can't be arsed - As I've already said, your site, your rules.

BoltonTillIDie

avatar
Jussi Jääskeläinen
Jussi Jääskeläinen
Interesting Twitter message sent to Us this morning...

Good morning. Somebody alerted me to your Forum thread about Blumarble and those two recent charges registered against them. I took a look at them. They're related to ISDA contracts and therefore unlikely to be relevant to BWFC. ISDA relates usually to over the counter (OTC) derivative trading facilities. A common way is to trade equity, commodity, or interest rate derivatives under a margin agreement. They put in 10%, bank puts in 90% and when the trade is done its all settled and Blumarble take the profit net of the 90% or settle the loss. The charge would cover a default on loss making positions and/or a default on any daily mark to market adjustments that may be needed to keep that 10/90 balance. Its very normal in derivatives trading. The checks out their website which cites equity derivative investment as a line of business. Hope this is helpful. They either trade derivatives for their own account or manage a derivatives book for someone else.

Apologies, just reread that message back. They are relevant to BWFC in a default situation. Security charges can get complex in the definition between what falls under a fixed charge and what falls under a floating charge. On the face of it a Blumarble asset that falls under floating charges in this Investec agreement would be the value of the loan & security interests in BWFC. In simple terms, but when are things ever simple(?), if Blumarble defaulted under their ISDA contract with Investec then the lender can appoint a Receiver to Blumarble to enforce a sale of the assets of Blumarble including the loan. So we'd get a new overlord.

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
My understanding is that the BWFC's assets (e.g. stadium) charged to Blumarble as a condition of the loan are being used by Blumarble as collateral to raise monies from Investec.

So if Blumarble default on their commitments to Investec, Investec can make a claim on BWFCs assets.

MDTS


David Ngog
David Ngog
Wanderlust .... it's security for a margin & settlement agreement (like a credit card rather than a bank loan) and Investec don't have a direct claim on BWFC assets. If Blumarble defaulted on their margin and settlement agreement with Investec, Investec will have fixed charges to "call in" on the immovable property (land, machinery, cars, etc) and floating charges over the rest of the trading assets (of which the loan to BWFC is one of them). In the case of fixed charge assets the lender has a power to enforce enforce a sale of the asset, usually through a specialist Receiver, and the borrower can not dispose of the assets without the permission of the lender. What the borrower has is rights over the sales proceeds from those assets. The loan to BWFC, in Blumarble's books, is a trading asset and likely under the floating charge header. If there's a default on the Investec facility by Blumarble the floating charges convert to fixed charges and so a similar process of appointing a Receiver is usual. The big difference between the two is that Blumarble can't sell their company cars without permission from Investec but if they wanted to sell the loan to BWFC they can do so long as they are not in default of the Investec facility. Investec can't force the sale of the BWFC stadium in your example in the event of a Blumarble. All they can do is appoint an Receiver to enforce a sale of the loan but they don't have rights to specific BWFC assets. Clear as mud Very Happy

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
MDTS wrote:Wanderlust .... it's security for a margin & settlement agreement (like a credit card rather than a bank loan) and Investec don't have a direct claim on BWFC assets. If Blumarble defaulted on their margin and settlement agreement with Investec, Investec will have fixed charges to "call in" on the immovable property (land, machinery, cars, etc) and floating charges over the rest of the trading assets (of which the loan to BWFC is one of them). In the case of fixed charge assets the lender has a power to enforce enforce a sale of the asset, usually through a specialist Receiver, and the borrower can not dispose of the assets without the permission of the lender. What the borrower has is rights over the sales proceeds from those assets. The loan to BWFC, in Blumarble's books, is a trading asset and likely under the floating charge header. If there's a default on the Investec facility by Blumarble the floating charges convert to fixed charges and so a similar process of appointing a Receiver is usual. The big difference between the two is that Blumarble can't sell their company cars without permission from Investec but if they wanted to sell the loan to BWFC they can do so long as they are not in default of the Investec facility. Investec can't force the sale of the BWFC stadium in your example in the event of a Blumarble. All they can do is appoint an Receiver to enforce a sale of the loan but they don't have rights to specific BWFC assets. Clear as mud Very Happy
True - but the outcome would be the same i.e. BWFC would be called upon to find the money from somewhere whether it's from selling assets or wherever.
It's not an unusual situation and I don't think BWFC are any more exposed than we were before.

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
MDTS wrote:Wanderlust .... it's security for a margin & settlement agreement (like a credit card rather than a bank loan) and Investec don't have a direct claim on BWFC assets. If Blumarble defaulted on their margin and settlement agreement with Investec, Investec will have fixed charges to "call in" on the immovable property (land, machinery, cars, etc) and floating charges over the rest of the trading assets (of which the loan to BWFC is one of them). In the case of fixed charge assets the lender has a power to enforce enforce a sale of the asset, usually through a specialist Receiver, and the borrower can not dispose of the assets without the permission of the lender. What the borrower has is rights over the sales proceeds from those assets. The loan to BWFC, in Blumarble's books, is a trading asset and likely under the floating charge header. If there's a default on the Investec facility by Blumarble the floating charges convert to fixed charges and so a similar process of appointing a Receiver is usual. The big difference between the two is that Blumarble can't sell their company cars without permission from Investec but if they wanted to sell the loan to BWFC they can do so long as they are not in default of the Investec facility. Investec can't force the sale of the BWFC stadium in your example in the event of a Blumarble. All they can do is appoint an Receiver to enforce a sale of the loan but they don't have rights to specific BWFC assets. Clear as mud Very Happy

Hello and welcome to Nuts MDTS and thank you for taking time out to give us the benefit of your financial knowledge on something most of us have never experienced before.

We very much hope that you get to like it here with the rest of us 'Nutters' and find time to join in the fun and banter that we normally have on here as well as commenting on the ups and down of our club that we all follow!



rammywhite

avatar
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Bread2.0 wrote:Those charges aren't against Blu Marble, they're charges that they've filed themselves.

And from my rudimentary understanding of how it works, that means they've started the legal ball rolling for when BWFC inevitably defaults on the loan repayment and they want the stadium as compo.

Which is an altogether very different kettle of fish.

We need Rammy really...

I've read all of this with interest but I'm keeping well out of it as its almost 100% pure speculation.
I can't really see that Blumarbles charge on the assets of BWFC is substantial as there is already a series of charges on the assets held by the BWFCs bankers, and possibly Eddy Davis. So unless they've allowed their charge on the assets either to lapse or become secondary (junior) debt, then I can't see that Blumarbles position is strong. I've actually read the documenst in Blumarbles Register of Charges and they read to me like  a charge on Blumarbles assets caused by borrowing in the shape of complex financial instruments. Should they default then any loan to BWFC would transfer to Investec who could chose either  to crystallise any charge (sell the assets if they can) or allow it to continue. They might just sell the loan- but rogation of debt of this kind in the UK is quite difficult.
However the reality is that BWFC is broke and the only asset worth having would be the land on which the stadium is built.
I've dealt with Investec professionally and they're no fools.
I personally can't see much of a threat from Blumarble.
 Much more interesting is why KA wants DH's shares. It could well be that DH has defaulted on a contract to pay in cash as working capital- but that is speculation.
It's much more likely that any potential investor wants to deal with one majority shareholder (i.e KA) should they want to buy out his interests in the club. Dealing with someone who holds 47% does not give them  majority rights nor access to any trading tax losses. This could be a prelude to KS liquidating his investment to a new investor.
But who in their right mind would buy BWFC at the moment.
Beyond that I don't really have much of a clue as to what's happening.- but to add to the speculation watch for a debt for equity swap should things begin to develop  quickly

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum