Latest on administration - Updated See Post #109

Don't worry lads it's all going to the master plan.  Has soon as Ken gets full control he will flip us to the highest bidder and walk away with a nice profit for himself.  That should leave us with owners that actually have some financial clout. Hopefully this uncertainty won't get down to pitch level and spoil our season...... if it does we start over again next season in better shape. How's that for a positive spin on it

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Well Sherlock, this is a two piper.... 

Because any additional funds that Anderson or anyone else may put in NOW clearly wasn't part of the business plan - otherwise there would be no cashflow crisis would there?

Plan fails - additional funds required - THEN KA demands DH matches his new investment if he wishes to retain same % shareholding.

Key point being that the plan had to fail first for this situation to arise.

The business plan was sound if both parties invested previously agreed sums at the time and amounts they said they would.

If Holdsworth had fulfilled his financial obligations we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Yes NOW with Holdsworth 'defaulting' on his obligations Anderson would need to find new money to fill the shortfall.

But that isn't the same as saying the original business planning was wrong which you appear to me to have said above.

All this being my own opinion of things anyway.

If it is true that Holdsworth did not come up with the amount of money he had committed - the amount that was built into the business plan prior to the current crisis - then that's  a different story and you have a point. If that is the case, then the default will explain some or all of the cashflow shortfall.

However, Holdsworth defaulting is news to me. If he did default then I won't be sad to see him go, but I'd be surprised if he did as it would have made the headlines at the time it was due. 

Can you show me where you got this info about Deano defaulting on his agreed investment from please?

That's your problem Lusty you simply either don't read stuff, or read it thoroughly, then plough on with only half a story, or a complete misconception and thus spout a load of nonsense then you get the hump with people like me (mainly me actually) trying to straighten you out.

Why do you think an internal club missed payment should be public news?

It wasn't.

It came to light of sorts in the explanation of why Anderson suddenly became the majority shareholder at the club and Holdsworth 'demotion' to being in charge of the football side instead.

It was mentioned by Iles in a tweet or something like that around that time.

If you want to go hunting for it then be my guest because I'm not that arsed to spend hours searching for something to prove I'm right on an internet forum.

Take my word for it or not - I'm not bothered either way - but ask yourself why Anderson quite quickly - almost from the start in fact - took the Chairmanship, then majority shareholder - and Holdsworth more or less disappeared from any position of power - he wasn't even involved with the appointment of Parkinson or signing of any of the players in the transfer window.

Do you think that was because Holdsworth left him to it or because 'money speaks loudest'?

Tweets from Iles -

UPDATE: Share deal at Wanderers waiting on exchange of one document (from Blumarble) before being signed. May happen tonight.

All sorted at DH end, I understand. KA has made a "substantial offer" which he says will safeguard against financial problems/admin #bwfc

Q to Iles - is there a "back to back" sale in part to investors? If not I don't see why this makes any difference to our financial situation?

Ans from Iles - strongly suspect so. KA did offer to fund 50/50 with DH to end of season and was refused. Maybe he will invest those funds?

Why is it, that on here, we start off with a sensible conversation, that quickly goes one of two ways. It either ends up with bumchummery, etc, or posters end up arguing with each other, and resorting to insults ?

I believe that if we were in a pub, stating the very same things on here, we would be able to get on fine, and all views would be aired and accepted for what they are, an (informed ?) opinion, and nothing more. Until we know the outcome, nobody is right, and nobody is wrong.

We are getting fewer members posting on here, and its becoming obvious why.

That's one of the drawbacks of the internet glos. Everyone is anonymous and that makes some people behave in ways that they wouldn't if they were standing next to you. On the one hand you have genuinely witty made up characters and on the other hand you have idiots who freely admit that they are only on here to wind up other posters.

True. I have to admit, I've lost it once, some time ago, (with Largehat I think), but have now learned to just get on with it, or not, but am joining in with fewer threads. Its no longer a place to discuss, but more like somewhere to be dogmatic and argumentative. Its not my way.

I simply assume you're all bonkers,and get on with it. 

We're all passionate about the Wanderers,so we're bound to get into a few spats,but I don't take any of it seriously.

I've spent a lot of time poking Sluffy with a sharp stick,with regard to his views on the ST,but I'm sure he knows it's done without malice,and he's certainly taken it with good grace.

So,you're all bonkers,but I wouldn't have you any other way.

Done deal: Ken Anderson will become sole owner at Bolton Wanderers

The final touches were being put on Ken Anderson’s share buy-out at Wanderers last night, which will see him effectively become sole owner of the club.

The former football agent has agreed a deal to purchase Dean Holdsworth’s 40 per cent stake and was waiting for a letter of confirmation from Blumarble – the finance company which funded Sports Shield’s involvement in the March takeover – before being able to sign on the dotted line.

Blumarble's loan is secured against club assets, most notably the stadium, and permission must be granted by the company to allow Holdsworth to sell his stake.

As The Bolton News went to press last night, it seemed the deal would be given the go-ahead - which will come as a major relief to supporters, just two days after Anderson admitted administration was being considered.

Anderson had offered to fund Wanderers on an equal footing with Holdsworth until the end of the season but after that plan was turned down by the former striker, a complete buy-out was deemed the only option to prevent major financial problems surfacing once again.

A meeting has been pencilled-in with the Football League on Thursday to present a business plan, with outstanding accounts for 2015 expected to be be signed off by auditors Deloitte quickly afterwards.

“We have agreed a deal in principle,” Anderson told The Bolton News yesterday evening. “Now we are just waiting on a couple of final things to go through before anything is signed.”

The exact amount paid by Anderson to Holdsworth for his stake in the club is, as yet, unknown but was described by the chairman last night as “way over the odds and against advice.”

Holdsworth issued the following statement last night, confirming the situation.

"I have been assured by Ken that once the sale has happened, the funds are in place to keep the club progressing for the future.

"I am proud to have helped the club survive the last season from its perilous position, and whilst I will be sad to leave my position as a director, it is important for me that I stay on at the club as an ambassador.

"The team, on and off the pitch will be secure and are in a great position to gain promotion back to the Championship this season"

Anderson has also confirmed that Wanderers have recently a historical debt to a number of player agents which, at one stage, looked set to mean legal action.

“We have sorted a deal with the agents who were owed money and renegotiated a few things which saved the club around £250,000,” he added.

Source

I'm a little bit confused!

Maybe in real life also but more to do with the partnership between Holdsworth and Anderson.

This is what I don't get -

The partnership was 50-50 between the two of them at the start, or so we were led to believe, with Holdsworth the public face of it - he said he would be the chairman for instance - well we know that didn't happen.

Holdsworth not being able to keep his financial end up led as I understand it, to Anderson gaining majority control.

We have more recently been told Holdsworth held 40% of the shares - so I assumed that meant the financial failure of Holdsworth was offset by him selling that 10% section of his shares to Anderson.

So far, so good - ok?

What I don't understand - unless it is Iles reporting of things - is the offer Holdsworth rejected an offer to keep his shares and meet the ongoing costs of running the club 50-50 with Anderson.

Surely he means 60-40?

Does that mean Holdsworth had sold 10% holding in the club (allowing that Davies share in the club was not actually 100% as there was something like 4% of original shareholders who never sold to Davies on his takeover) to a third party - if so who and when?

Maybe I'm looking too closely into this and Iles is simply being generalistic in what he says but the bottom line is Iles consistently reporting recently of Holdsworth 40% in the club - so if Anderson started off with 50% of it, then who now owns the missing 10%?

If Iles was right about the 50-50 ongoing funding then I assume that 10% is therefore owned by someone else in Team Holdsworth?

So has Anderson bought all the remaining shares - or is someone out there with a silent 10% ownership in the club still?

Maybe even Eddie!

Don't mention evil Uncle Eddie for Gods sake 

maybe it's just that Iles is clueless as usual?

Norpig wrote:Don't mention evil Uncle Eddie for Gods sake 

Norpig wrote:maybe it's just that Iles is clueless as usual?

It probably is him oversimplifying stuff - which is excusable on things like twitter but you would have thought (or at least I would) that he was far more accurate in his reporting in the paper.

Then again he has already shown he's clueless when it comes to reporting on the financial stuff (how could he not see there MUST be a story as to why we were under Davies running the fourth biggest club debt in world football on a par with Manchester United and Real Madrid - the two RICHEST clubs in the world!!!!).

I still quite like Iles but it is easy to see why he's at the Bolton News level and not a national journalist.

(Sorry to be so brutal if you are reading Marc).

And if you are - are ALL the shares accounted for or not - and if not who has the missing 10%???

Sluffy wrote:I'm a little bit confused!

Maybe in real life also but more to do with the partnership between Holdsworth and Anderson.

This is what I don't get -

The partnership was 50-50 between the two of them at the start, or so we were led to believe, with Holdsworth the public face of it - he said he would be the chairman for instance - well we know that didn't happen.

Holdsworth not being able to keep his financial end up led as I understand it, to Anderson gaining majority control.

We have more recently been told Holdsworth held 40% of the shares - so I assumed that meant the financial failure of Holdsworth was offset by him selling that 10% section of his shares to Anderson.

So far, so good - ok?

What I don't understand - unless it is Iles reporting of things - is the offer Holdsworth rejected an offer to keep his shares and meet the ongoing costs of running the club 50-50 with Anderson.

Surely he means 60-40?

Does that mean Holdsworth had sold 10% holding in the club (allowing that Davies share in the club was not actually 100% as there was something like 4% of original shareholders who never sold to Davies on his takeover) to a third party - if so who and when?

Maybe I'm looking too closely into this and Iles is simply being generalistic in what he says but the bottom line is Iles consistently reporting recently of Holdsworth 40% in the club - so if Anderson started off with 50% of it, then who now owns the missing 10%?

If Iles was right about the 50-50 ongoing funding then I assume that 10% is therefore owned by someone else  in Team Holdsworth?

So has Anderson bought all the remaining shares - or is someone out there with a silent 10% ownership in the club still?

Maybe even Eddie!

They both acquired 47% each (the other 6% owned by the 1000's ripped off by Eddie years ago) when the share issue was signed DH promised to invest £5m into the club and KA promised to put in £2.5 with a further £8m going forward if needed

2 weeks into the deal KA noticed the DH had only put £4m into the club, as around £1m of the 5 had been gobbled up in fees etc

This was KA's que to seize control of the club and his excuse to not put in his agreed monies, stating DH was in default of the share agreement, Dean being the whimp he is allowed KA to bully him into stepping down from chairmanship, then CEO then director of football, infact KA has done everything in his power to humiliate Dean hoping he would just throw in the towel and leave, Dean however has dug his heals in and demanded a £1m payout to settle his ongoing law suit of the club for wrongful dismissal, which KA has agreed to.

So in short, Ken Anderson has acquired 94% of Bolton Wanderers for 50p, don't feel to sorry for Dean Holdsworth, he hasn't done too bad either for his 50p and negotiating the loan (which the club pays back), netting a cool £1m out of the club coffers.

So if you're sitting there thinking the club is in a better position now than it has been for a long time, think again
these 2 clowns are here to rape this club and won't be going anywhere until the carcass is bare

wow Blaster say what you mean why don't you? Do you have some insider knowledge on all this?

There isn't a missing 10%, the share issue more or less stated that if either one of them failed to fulfill their end of the bargain, they would relinquish 10% of share to the other, who would then assume control, although Dean could have questioned this had he been a bit more business savvy

blasterbolton wrote:
They both acquired 47% each (the other 6% owned by the 1000's ripped off by Eddie years ago) when the share issue was signed DH promised to invest £5m into the club and KA promised to put in £2.5 with a further £8m going forward if needed

2 weeks into the deal KA noticed the DH had only put £4m into the club, as around £1m of the 5 had been gobbled up in fees etc

This was KA's que to seize control of the club and his excuse to not put in his agreed monies, stating DH was in default of the share agreement, Dean being the whimp he is allowed KA to bully him into stepping down from chairmanship, then CEO then director of football, infact KA has done everything in his power to humiliate Dean hoping he would just throw in the towel and leave, Dean however has dug his heals in and demanded a £1m payout to settle his ongoing law suit of the club for wrongful dismissal, which KA has agreed to.

So in short, Ken Anderson has acquired 94% of Bolton Wanderers for 50p, don't feel to sorry for Dean Holdsworth, he hasn't done too bad either for his 50p and negotiating the loan (which the club pays back), netting a cool £1m out of the club coffers.

So if you're sitting there thinking the club is in a better position now than it has been for a long time, think again
these 2 clowns are here to rape this club and won't be going anywhere until the carcass is bare

Thank you, very informative.

I didn't doubt for one moment that either of them were in it out of the goodness of their hearts.

The club is after all a multimillion pound business and there to make money for the owners of it - unless of course you are an ST, which is non profit making.

The fatal flaw with an ST ownership in top division English football is non-profit making equates to not being able to compete at the highest levels - it imposes an artificial glass ceiling as to how far a club can actually rise and compete too.

That is all very well if that is what you want but to me football as always been about climbing to the pinnacle and not being content at farting about at just base camp forever.

As far as I can make out the deal left in place by Davies on his sale prevented the new owners asset stripping the club and so the only way they could make money from it was to financially turn it around and sell it on for a profit.

It as also come out in the last few days that the club is running at a £9 million annual loss.  We always knew it was running at a loss until the foolishly high wages of some of the players given out under the previous regime had run their course.

So there must be some risk involved by Anderson to bring his own investment into the club in order to cover the running costs until the time he can sell on and recover his investment.

If Anderson can turn the club around and move it on to someone who can take it further upwards, then I for one don't begrudge him making a healthy profit from doing that.  It basically what any owner of any commercial business does.

That's what the western world is built upon.

If anybody and their dog could have made a quick buck out of turning the club around, I'm sure there would have been a queue a mile long to do so, so the fact that we got a perceived business novice and a former struck off for 8 years as a director, ex-footy agent, tends to suggest that not many people at all fancied the task.

I guess from the way you word your post that you have a completely different ideology regarding the club than what I do and thus view the outcomes vastly different to me.

There's nothing wrong in that and it is the difference in opinions that leads to a heathy debate.

I hope you stick around and add to the forum - in fact I'm sure we all would.

It's good to see things from all sides.

Just to be clear, which are the "two clowns" who are "here to rape the club" and "strip the carcass bare"?

Ken "Evil Bob Hope" Anderson and Dean "Mike Collins? Who? Never met the guy.." Holdsworth?

Or 

Evil Bob Hope and his chav of a son?

Cheers in advance.

(I'm not saying you're wrong but I want to tie down which two we're talking about because I would have thought that DH's ability to rape anything would be severely curtailed now.)

Ask mike smith  


Master blaster


I mean blaster bolton

don't tell me we have been infiltrated?