These bloody accounts!

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:it's more likely Deano has been played by whoever he jumped into bed with, as Rammy says, he is probably a bit thick.

I simply don't believe he 'loved' Bolton so much that he jumped through all those hoops (and set up a new business specifically remember - Sport Shield Bolton Wanderers - or whatever is its exact title) simply just to be the owner of a club he just run up a massive £5 million debt on it he couldn't possibly pay back himself.

He might not be Einstein but he must have had a good idea of what he was getting himself into, in my opinion.

 I reckon he got carried along with the hype and the thought of being our saviour, he had very little business acumen or history before all this didn't he? 
He probably thought he would get the chairman job and be the face of the club and let his dodgy mates actually run the club

I think you give him too much credit for wanting the club - I don't believe the hype at all that he 'loved' the club that much.

In fact he played more games and scored more goals for Wimbledon than he did us and he played more or less 75% of his career at clubs other than Bolton.

Christ he wasn't really that much loved here following his Wembley miss!

You're a nice bloke Norpig and you clearly want to see the good in him but I could never understand why he wanted to buy the club so badly (don't forget we were losing a £1 million per month at the time and scheduled to do so for the following 18 months or so as well!).

Something clearly wasn't right to my mind.

And nobody is that dumb.

Do you remember his big interview when he took over? He was full of his love for the club and i think at the time we all believed it.

I did think well of him at that stage but as time has gone on he has shown himself to be inept and maybe a bit underhand

I'm not that naive to believe either him or KA did it for altruistic reasons, they did it because they thought they could steady the ship and then sell on, which at the time is all we could have hoped for anyway as no one else was throwing money at Uncle Eddie

Agreed. Sadly,this is going to drag on. We all have our own views,and I don't claim my distrust of Anderson is anything but instinctive.
However,looking at his previous machinations at Southampton (and Ipswich) I'm not willing to put a great deal of faith in him.
Deano is just a wheeler dealer.

Holdsworth responds to the Bolton News -

Holdsworth has now issued his own statement to The Bolton News, pledging to take his concerns to the Football League.

"It is wrong of Ken Anderson to use the Club's website as his private mouthpiece to publish false and defamatory allegations about me. I will not dignify his absurd accusations with a response in public.
 
"I am seeking legal advice on my options and am considering complaining to The Football League about Ken's behaviour which is undoubtedly damaging the image and integrity of the club and The League."

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

Seconds out..........

Sluffy wrote:

observer wrote:

rammywhite wrote:I'm not surprised that KA is challenging the loan made to DH's investment vehicle which seems to suggest that he pledged the clubs assets as security. That would be like you and your brother each borrowing to buy a house jointly and your brother pledging the house to the bank without your knowledge before the house was bought. . You as joint owner could legally challenge that. Its a bit like me borrowing £1000 from Barclays to buy shares in British Gas and pledging the assets of British gas as security. It wouldn't work in law- and I'm not in the least bit surprised that KA is quite rightly challenging this in court. And I think he'll win.
I get the impression more and more that Dean is a bit thick and he's being manipulated like some dim-witted patsy or frontman into buying the club by sophisticated quasi-criminals who are using him to get the club assets and sell them off.. No-one sensible would go into a deal like this unless they were naïve and easily bewildered. A 24% pa interest rate?? Who in their right minds pays that. . And its rising to 30%!!

But where were the overseers?  The trustee, the FA, and the courts who approved the deal?

I'm not sure who would be the trustee at the time but Holdsworth deal with BluMarble was signed as him being the owner and the club secretary at the time being the witness - see I think that is the trustee part answered?

The FA looked for £7.5 million running costs for the year - Holdsworth met his part with the loan (secured on club assets) and Anderson obviously proved he had access to his £2.5 million part of the deal, so the FA must have been happy enough.

The court was only bothered about settling the claim of the taxman - which was done from Holdsworth loan - so they were happy I guess.

I can't really see anything untoward - even Holdsworth deal.

I understands Rammy's analogy about buying gas shares - but what if he bought the whole of British gas and financed the deal from their assets - I think that is legal isn't it - and if so that is broadly what Holdsworth did I think?

It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

Sluffy wrote:Holdsworth responds to the Bolton News -

Holdsworth has now issued his own statement to The Bolton News, pledging to take his concerns to the Football League.

"It is wrong of Ken Anderson to use the Club's website as his private mouthpiece to publish false and defamatory allegations about me. I will not dignify his absurd accusations with a response in public.
 
"I am seeking legal advice on my options and am considering complaining to The Football League about Ken's behaviour which is undoubtedly damaging the image and integrity of the club and The League."

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

I'm reading that as: "I am guilty as fuck on all points but I'm going to go and cry to the Football League because that's all I've got left."

He's a pathetic, greasy-haired, goofy fuckwit and he deserves a slap.

Objection,Your Honour.  My learned friend is pissed.

And you've got yer wig on backwards.

Bread2.0 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Holdsworth responds to the Bolton News -

Holdsworth has now issued his own statement to The Bolton News, pledging to take his concerns to the Football League.

"It is wrong of Ken Anderson to use the Club's website as his private mouthpiece to publish false and defamatory allegations about me. I will not dignify his absurd accusations with a response in public.
 
"I am seeking legal advice on my options and am considering complaining to The Football League about Ken's behaviour which is undoubtedly damaging the image and integrity of the club and The League."

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

I'm reading that as: "I am guilty as fuck on all points but I'm going to go and cry to the Football League because that's all I've got left."

He's a pathetic, greasy-haired, goofy fuckwit and he deserves a slap.

....and he missed a sitter against the Villa at Wembley,the numpty.

Poor Eidur.

rammywhite wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

I understands Rammy's analogy about buying gas shares - but what if he bought the whole of British gas and financed the deal from their assets - I think that is legal isn't it - and if so that is broadly what Holdsworth did I think?

It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

Thanks Rammy, that is very enlightening and what I though would have been the case based on common sense only.

What I can't understand is how BluMarble entered into such a deal knowing Holdsworth was a minority share holder?

I've speculated previously that perhaps for a few minutes or so that a time line on that day might have been

Holdsworth buys the club for £1

He the enters into the deal with BluMarble for the loan (being majority shareholder at the time).

Then he sells half his shares to Anderson for 50p.


If per chance that was the case would everything be above board so to speak or would he have to disclose the loan deal with Anderson before he buys half of his shares?  Or is it still a case of let the buyer beware?

If he couldn't do that legally I come back again as to how and why BluMarble entered into the agreement in the first place - surely it would be a void contract?

It even sounds that much more dodgier when you grasp that Sport Shield takes on the loan, passes it on to the club and charge them £250,000 for simply passing on the loan to the club and other stuff it cost them to buy the club, then realise that Sport Shield HAVE to pay the full some back to BluMarble 16 DAYS later! (The club having to pay the £5 million back to Sports Shield in 2018).

Where did they think they would get £5 million from in just over two weeks?

Non of this looks at all good to me.

rammywhite wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

observer wrote:

rammywhite wrote:I'm not surprised that KA is challenging the loan made to DH's investment vehicle which seems to suggest that he pledged the clubs assets as security. That would be like you and your brother each borrowing to buy a house jointly and your brother pledging the house to the bank without your knowledge before the house was bought. . You as joint owner could legally challenge that. Its a bit like me borrowing £1000 from Barclays to buy shares in British Gas and pledging the assets of British gas as security. It wouldn't work in law- and I'm not in the least bit surprised that KA is quite rightly challenging this in court. And I think he'll win.
I get the impression more and more that Dean is a bit thick and he's being manipulated like some dim-witted patsy or frontman into buying the club by sophisticated quasi-criminals who are using him to get the club assets and sell them off.. No-one sensible would go into a deal like this unless they were naïve and easily bewildered. A 24% pa interest rate?? Who in their right minds pays that. . And its rising to 30%!!

But where were the overseers?  The trustee, the FA, and the courts who approved the deal?

I'm not sure who would be the trustee at the time but Holdsworth deal with BluMarble was signed as him being the owner and the club secretary at the time being the witness - see I think that is the trustee part answered?

The FA looked for £7.5 million running costs for the year - Holdsworth met his part with the loan (secured on club assets) and Anderson obviously proved he had access to his £2.5 million part of the deal, so the FA must have been happy enough.

The court was only bothered about settling the claim of the taxman - which was done from Holdsworth loan - so they were happy I guess.

I can't really see anything untoward - even Holdsworth deal.

I understands Rammy's analogy about buying gas shares - but what if he bought the whole of British gas and financed the deal from their assets - I think that is legal isn't it - and if so that is broadly what Holdsworth did I think?

It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

I don't think Deano would necessarily require a majority shareholding though. All he needed to do was to go to the shareholders and tell them that BWFC was toast unless they signed off on pawning the assets in order to acquire the funds to keep the business afloat. A majority of shareholder votes would do it wouldn't it?

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

I don't think Deano would necessarily require a majority shareholding though. All he needed to do was to go to the shareholders and tell them that BWFC was toast unless they signed off on pawning the assets in order to acquire the funds to keep the business afloat. A majority of shareholder votes would do it wouldn't it?

That doesn't make any sense to me Lusty.

In what you say above ANYONE who has a shareholding - and there are several hundred minor shareholders - could do the same - or not!

People would be running all over the place entering into all sorts of agreements - good and bad!

Isn't that why you need to have a majority to have authority to act on behalf of any company?

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

observer wrote:

rammywhite wrote:I'm not surprised that KA is challenging the loan made to DH's investment vehicle which seems to suggest that he pledged the clubs assets as security. That would be like you and your brother each borrowing to buy a house jointly and your brother pledging the house to the bank without your knowledge before the house was bought. . You as joint owner could legally challenge that. Its a bit like me borrowing £1000 from Barclays to buy shares in British Gas and pledging the assets of British gas as security. It wouldn't work in law- and I'm not in the least bit surprised that KA is quite rightly challenging this in court. And I think he'll win.
I get the impression more and more that Dean is a bit thick and he's being manipulated like some dim-witted patsy or frontman into buying the club by sophisticated quasi-criminals who are using him to get the club assets and sell them off.. No-one sensible would go into a deal like this unless they were naïve and easily bewildered. A 24% pa interest rate?? Who in their right minds pays that. . And its rising to 30%!!

But where were the overseers?  The trustee, the FA, and the courts who approved the deal?

I'm not sure who would be the trustee at the time but Holdsworth deal with BluMarble was signed as him being the owner and the club secretary at the time being the witness - see I think that is the trustee part answered?

The FA looked for £7.5 million running costs for the year - Holdsworth met his part with the loan (secured on club assets) and Anderson obviously proved he had access to his £2.5 million part of the deal, so the FA must have been happy enough.

The court was only bothered about settling the claim of the taxman - which was done from Holdsworth loan - so they were happy I guess.

I can't really see anything untoward - even Holdsworth deal.

I understands Rammy's analogy about buying gas shares - but what if he bought the whole of British gas and financed the deal from their assets - I think that is legal isn't it - and if so that is broadly what Holdsworth did I think?

It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

I don't think Deano would necessarily require a majority shareholding though. All he needed to do was to go to the shareholders and tell them that BWFC was toast unless they signed off on pawning the assets in order to acquire the funds to keep the business afloat. A majority of shareholder votes would do it wouldn't it?

Yes- but if he did that then he had the majority of the equity shareholders agreeing with him- and then they could sign such a charge on the assets off. Its not actually a majority of the shareholders- its based on the holding of shares-so he would have needed 50%+1 of the issued share capital (or Board approval) to enter into such a security
But there is no evidence that he did. Add to that there is a legal dispute about exactly who owns the shares ( see Note 31 to the Accounts) and you'll see that he wasn't in a position to do this. I still think the charge on the assets is invalid.

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

observer wrote:

rammywhite wrote:I'm not surprised that KA is challenging the loan made to DH's investment vehicle which seems to suggest that he pledged the clubs assets as security. That would be like you and your brother each borrowing to buy a house jointly and your brother pledging the house to the bank without your knowledge before the house was bought. . You as joint owner could legally challenge that. Its a bit like me borrowing £1000 from Barclays to buy shares in British Gas and pledging the assets of British gas as security. It wouldn't work in law- and I'm not in the least bit surprised that KA is quite rightly challenging this in court. And I think he'll win.
I get the impression more and more that Dean is a bit thick and he's being manipulated like some dim-witted patsy or frontman into buying the club by sophisticated quasi-criminals who are using him to get the club assets and sell them off.. No-one sensible would go into a deal like this unless they were naïve and easily bewildered. A 24% pa interest rate?? Who in their right minds pays that. . And its rising to 30%!!

But where were the overseers?  The trustee, the FA, and the courts who approved the deal?

I'm not sure who would be the trustee at the time but Holdsworth deal with BluMarble was signed as him being the owner and the club secretary at the time being the witness - see I think that is the trustee part answered?

The FA looked for £7.5 million running costs for the year - Holdsworth met his part with the loan (secured on club assets) and Anderson obviously proved he had access to his £2.5 million part of the deal, so the FA must have been happy enough.

The court was only bothered about settling the claim of the taxman - which was done from Holdsworth loan - so they were happy I guess.

I can't really see anything untoward - even Holdsworth deal.

I understands Rammy's analogy about buying gas shares - but what if he bought the whole of British gas and financed the deal from their assets - I think that is legal isn't it - and if so that is broadly what Holdsworth did I think?

It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

I don't think Deano would necessarily require a majority shareholding though. All he needed to do was to go to the shareholders and tell them that BWFC was toast unless they signed off on pawning the assets in order to acquire the funds to keep the business afloat. A majority of shareholder votes would do it wouldn't it?

Yes- but if he did that then he had the majority of the equity shareholders agreeing with him- and then they could sign such a charge on the assets off. Its not actually a majority of the shareholders- its based on the holding of shares-so he would have needed 50%+1 of the issued share capital (or Board approval) to enter into such a security
But there is no evidence that he did. Add to that there is a legal dispute about exactly who owns the shares ( see Note 31 to the Accounts) and you'll see that he wasn't in a position to do this. I still think the charge on the assets is invalid.

There is no evidence that he did, but I'd have thought that of all Deano's options at the time, collaring ED - who I think was the majority shareholder and desperate to get out - would have been his easiest route to grab control of the assets. The shareholding at the time of the takeover is the key thing here - not the current shareholders - and the 6% small shareholders would have been an irrelevance as Deano only needed a simple majority.

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

I don't think Deano would necessarily require a majority shareholding though. All he needed to do was to go to the shareholders and tell them that BWFC was toast unless they signed off on pawning the assets in order to acquire the funds to keep the business afloat. A majority of shareholder votes would do it wouldn't it?

Yes- but if he did that then he had the majority of the equity shareholders agreeing with him- and then they could sign such a charge on the assets off. Its not actually a majority of the shareholders- its based on the holding of shares-so he would have needed 50%+1 of the issued share capital (or Board approval) to enter into such a security
But there is no evidence that he did. Add to that there is a legal dispute about exactly who owns the shares ( see Note 31 to the Accounts) and you'll see that he wasn't in a position to do this. I still think the charge on the assets is invalid.

There is no evidence that he did, but I'd have thought that of all Deano's options at the time, collaring ED - who I think was the majority shareholder and desperate to get out - would have been his easiest route to grab control of the assets. The shareholding at the time of the takeover is the key thing here - not the current shareholders - and the 6% small shareholders would have been an irrelevance as Deano only needed a simple majority.

Eh???

If Davies still HELD the shares Holdsworth went on to buy then he couldn't have entered into an agreement with BluMarble or anyone else at that time.

If he had a partnership with Anderson on the shares from the off, then he would have had to obtain over half of the minority shareholding to act - he didn't even speak to them.

The only other possible scenario is the one I've already posted above -

Sluffy wrote:What I can't understand is how BluMarble entered into such a deal knowing Holdsworth was a minority share holder?

I've speculated previously that perhaps for a few minutes or so that a time line on that day might have been

Holdsworth buys the club for £1

He the enters into the deal with BluMarble for the loan (being majority shareholder at the time).

Then he sells half his shares to Anderson for 50p.


If per chance that was the case would everything be above board so to speak or would he have to disclose the loan deal with Anderson before he buys half of his shares?  Or is it still a case of let the buyer beware?

If he couldn't do that legally I come back again as to how and why BluMarble entered into the agreement in the first place - surely it would be a void contract?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

I don't think Deano would necessarily require a majority shareholding though. All he needed to do was to go to the shareholders and tell them that BWFC was toast unless they signed off on pawning the assets in order to acquire the funds to keep the business afloat. A majority of shareholder votes would do it wouldn't it?

Yes- but if he did that then he had the majority of the equity shareholders agreeing with him- and then they could sign such a charge on the assets off. Its not actually a majority of the shareholders- its based on the holding of shares-so he would have needed 50%+1 of the issued share capital (or Board approval) to enter into such a security
But there is no evidence that he did. Add to that there is a legal dispute about exactly who owns the shares ( see Note 31 to the Accounts) and you'll see that he wasn't in a position to do this. I still think the charge on the assets is invalid.

There is no evidence that he did, but I'd have thought that of all Deano's options at the time, collaring ED - who I think was the majority shareholder and desperate to get out - would have been his easiest route to grab control of the assets. The shareholding at the time of the takeover is the key thing here - not the current shareholders - and the 6% small shareholders would have been an irrelevance as Deano only needed a simple majority.

Eh???

If Davies still HELD the shares Holdsworth went on to buy then he couldn't have entered into an agreement with BluMarble or anyone else at that time.

If he had a partnership with Anderson on the shares from the off, then he would have had to obtain over half of the minority shareholding to act - he didn't even speak to them.

The only other possible scenario is the one I've already posted above -

Sluffy wrote:What I can't understand is how BluMarble entered into such a deal knowing Holdsworth was a minority share holder?

I've speculated previously that perhaps for a few minutes or so that a time line on that day might have been

Holdsworth buys the club for £1

He the enters into the deal with BluMarble for the loan (being majority shareholder at the time).

Then he sells half his shares to Anderson for 50p.


If per chance that was the case would everything be above board so to speak or would he have to disclose the loan deal with Anderson before he buys half of his shares?  Or is it still a case of let the buyer beware?

If he couldn't do that legally I come back again as to how and why BluMarble entered into the agreement in the first place - surely it would be a void contract?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

There's too many ifs, buts and assertions here to know what actually did happen.
I guess we'll never actually know but no doubt it'll all unravel when it gets to the High Court

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:It would be if Holdsworth had bought a majority share and that the Board of Directors had agreed and signed off the security on the loan deal.
But he didn't- he's a minority shareholder and the best that he could give as security would be his shares and not the assets of the business.  They weren't his to pledge.  They belonged to all of the shareholders and not just him.
If the Board had signed off the security on the loan then the  charge on the assets would be valid and would crystallise and the creditors could divvy up the assets between them ( subject all sorts of receivership law).
But he wasn't in a legal position to pledge the clubs assets. 
That's the point which no doubt KA is basing has legal argument on

I don't think Deano would necessarily require a majority shareholding though. All he needed to do was to go to the shareholders and tell them that BWFC was toast unless they signed off on pawning the assets in order to acquire the funds to keep the business afloat. A majority of shareholder votes would do it wouldn't it?

Yes- but if he did that then he had the majority of the equity shareholders agreeing with him- and then they could sign such a charge on the assets off. Its not actually a majority of the shareholders- its based on the holding of shares-so he would have needed 50%+1 of the issued share capital (or Board approval) to enter into such a security
But there is no evidence that he did. Add to that there is a legal dispute about exactly who owns the shares ( see Note 31 to the Accounts) and you'll see that he wasn't in a position to do this. I still think the charge on the assets is invalid.

There is no evidence that he did, but I'd have thought that of all Deano's options at the time, collaring ED - who I think was the majority shareholder and desperate to get out - would have been his easiest route to grab control of the assets. The shareholding at the time of the takeover is the key thing here - not the current shareholders - and the 6% small shareholders would have been an irrelevance as Deano only needed a simple majority.

Eh???

If Davies still HELD the shares Holdsworth went on to buy then he couldn't have entered into an agreement with BluMarble or anyone else at that time.

If he had a partnership with Anderson on the shares from the off, then he would have had to obtain over half of the minority shareholding to act - he didn't even speak to them.

The only other possible scenario is the one I've already posted above -

Sluffy wrote:What I can't understand is how BluMarble entered into such a deal knowing Holdsworth was a minority share holder?

I've speculated previously that perhaps for a few minutes or so that a time line on that day might have been

Holdsworth buys the club for £1

He the enters into the deal with BluMarble for the loan (being majority shareholder at the time).

Then he sells half his shares to Anderson for 50p.


If per chance that was the case would everything be above board so to speak or would he have to disclose the loan deal with Anderson before he buys half of his shares?  Or is it still a case of let the buyer beware?

If he couldn't do that legally I come back again as to how and why BluMarble entered into the agreement in the first place - surely it would be a void contract?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

I'll try to keep it simple then.

Sluffy wrote:If Davies still HELD the shares Holdsworth went on to buy then he couldn't have entered into an agreement with BluMarble or anyone else at that time.

Yes he could. A simple side agreement or condition of the loan that stated on transfer of the shares, Blumarble would have a claim on the assets.

In the same way, if I took out a mortgage to buy a house - a house which I don't currently own - the lender would make it a condition of the loan that once I had paid the vendors, they (the lender) would own the proportion of the house that their loan covered i.e. total value less my deposit contribution. The more I pay off the mortgage, the greater the proportion I would own.

Sluffy wrote:If he had a partnership with Anderson on the shares from the off, then he would have had to obtain over half of the minority shareholding to act - he didn't even speak to them.

No he wouldn't. He just needed a simple majority to do a deal with i.e. 51% of the share value. It's the number of shares held not the number of people who hold them. One person could have a controlling interest and I believe that person was ED.

wanderlust wrote:I'll try to keep it simple then.

Sluffy wrote:If Davies still HELD the shares Holdsworth went on to buy then he couldn't have entered into an agreement with BluMarble or anyone else at that time.

Yes he could. A simple side agreement or condition of the loan that stated on transfer of the shares, Blumarble would have a claim on the assets.

In the same way, if I took out a mortgage to buy a house - a house which I don't currently own - the lender would make it a condition of the loan that once I had paid the vendors, they (the lender) would own the proportion of the house that their loan covered i.e. total value less my deposit contribution. The more I pay off the mortgage, the greater the proportion I would own.

Forgive me for being a bit thick here but how could Davies make a contractual agreement with Holdsworth to a third party (BluMarble) without them being party to the deal in the first place?

If they were party to a deal with Davies then wouldn't it be legally incumbent of him therefore to notify that to anyone else he was selling his shares to ie Anderson!

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:If he had a partnership with Anderson on the shares from the off, then he would have had to obtain over half of the minority shareholding to act - he didn't even speak to them.

No he wouldn't. He just needed a simple majority to do a deal with i.e. 51% of the share value. It's the number of shares held not the number of people who hold them. One person could have a controlling interest and I believe that person was ED.

Yes, that is why I said majority shareholding and not the majority of the share holders.

And I refer you back to my point above - how could BluMarble not be a party to your suggested undertaking and therefore how could Davies not disclose the fact to Anderson when he was selling him the other half of his share holding???

my head hurts reading all this