BREAKING Ken Anderson acquires Sports Shield's stake in the club.

Norpig wrote:Again excuse my lack of financial nous, but as he owns 95% of the club how can he put it on the club? Surely it must be his money?

I'll try to explain what I think has happened. If the liquidators had sold Deano's shares to e.g. an Indian syndicate, the syndicate would have had to pay ££££ for them and the liquidator would have passed that money on to BM to pay off the debt - leaving KA with 57% and the Indian syndicate with 35% and with the club having taken back control of the assets that were previously at risk because of Deano's deal.

What appears to have happened is that is that KA has taken on the debt by saying that if he can't pay it back, he'll give BM the club's assets e.g. the ground. So effectively KA has more shares but the club is deeper in debt to the tune of £7 million and may have put even more assets at risk.

In essence, it looks like KA has pawned the club in order to get control, rather than let anyone else take an interest.


...unless someone has any evidence that he financed it personally.

Sluffy has a point about reducing the overall shareholding but it's irrelevant to the debt and the increased risk to the club which would be there regardless of what the share issue is.

wanderlust wrote:

Norpig wrote:Again excuse my lack of financial nous, but as he owns 95% of the club how can he put it on the club? Surely it must be his money?

I'll try to explain what I think has happened. If the liquidators had sold Deano's shares to e.g. an Indian syndicate, the syndicate would have had to pay ££££ for them and the liquidator would have passed that money on to BM to pay off the debt - leaving KA with 57% and the Indian syndicate with 35% and with the club having taken back control of the assets that were previously at risk because of Deano's deal.

What appears to have happened is that is that KA has taken on the debt by saying that if he can't pay it back, he'll give BM the club's assets e.g. the ground. So effectively KA has more shares but the club is deeper in debt to the tune of £7 million and may have put even more assets at risk.

In essence, it looks like KA has pawned the club in order to get control, rather than let anyone else take an interest.


...unless someone has any evidence that he financed it personally.

Sluffy has a point about reducing the overall shareholding but it's irrelevant to the debt and the increased risk to the club which would be there regardless of what the share issue is.

Have you completely forgotten that BM ALREADY had a charge over Burnden Leisure's assets???

Even if someone else bought Holdsworth shares the debt already EXISTED against the club!!!

Even if some bought the shares other than Anderson, the money would not have covered the debt (£7 million) and would have left the liquidator coming after the club for the balance.

Anderson has basically taken control over the debt so that it can be paid off at an amount and rate agreeable to everyone.

So once again you are just spouting utter bollocks - this being laughable!

"In essence, it looks like KA has pawned the club in order to get control, rather than let anyone else take an interest".

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Norpig wrote:Again excuse my lack of financial nous, but as he owns 95% of the club how can he put it on the club? Surely it must be his money?

I'll try to explain what I think has happened. If the liquidators had sold Deano's shares to e.g. an Indian syndicate, the syndicate would have had to pay ££££ for them and the liquidator would have passed that money on to BM to pay off the debt - leaving KA with 57% and the Indian syndicate with 35% and with the club having taken back control of the assets that were previously at risk because of Deano's deal.

What appears to have happened is that is that KA has taken on the debt by saying that if he can't pay it back, he'll give BM the club's assets e.g. the ground. So effectively KA has more shares but the club is deeper in debt to the tune of £7 million and may have put even more assets at risk.

In essence, it looks like KA has pawned the club in order to get control, rather than let anyone else take an interest.


...unless someone has any evidence that he financed it personally.

Sluffy has a point about reducing the overall shareholding but it's irrelevant to the debt and the increased risk to the club which would be there regardless of what the share issue is.

Have you completely forgotten that BM ALREADY had a charge over Burnden Leisure's assets??? SOME OF THE ASSETS  - WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT KA INCREASED THE EXPOSURE IN THIS DEAL

Even if someone else bought Holdsworth shares the debt already EXISTED against the club!!! WRONG AGAIN. THE DEBT WAS AGAINST DEANO'S BUSINESS WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE LIQUIDATED AND NOT THE CLUB

Even if some bought the shares other than Anderson, the money would not have covered the debt (£7 million) and would have left the liquidator coming after the club for the balance. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT AN EXTERNAL INVESTOR MIGHT HAVE OFFERED

Anderson has basically taken control over the debt so that it can be paid off at an amount and rate agreeable to everyone. THAT MAY HAVE BEEN HIS PRIMARY MOTIVE BUT AGAIN YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW

So once again you are just spouting utter bollocks - this being laughable!

"In essence, it looks like KA has pawned the club in order to get control, rather than let anyone else take an interest".

It does look like that though so it's you that's spouting bollocks, made worse by the fact that you haven't got a clue what his motives are, what deal he did with the liquidators and the extent of what he offered in addition to the existing collateral in order to sweeten BM into accepting something other than payment. Nor do you know what an external investor might have offered for Deano's shares - but whatever it was it would have reduced rather than increased the club's exposure.
Perhaps you should just shut it until the facts emerge.

Jesus I don't know why I bother at all with you.

I've thought for a long while that you posted as you did because you were on some sort of a wind up now I think you just do it because you like to some how big yourself up as though you know stuff - yet miss the most basic of facts before you spout off.

Holdsworth took out a loan with BM with SSBWFC - at the same time the loan was secured against Burnden Leisure's assets.

Yes the debt WAS taken out by SSBWFC BUT in was secured against the club, hotel and any other assets we had.  The deal was witnessed by the clubs Secretary.

If you don't believe me then check out Companies House link below - and read the PDF link.

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

As SSBWFC had no assets of its own - it registered accounts were for a dormant company - ie not trading - see here -

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

...so it is safe to assume that the charge against the club was for the full amount of the BM loan to SSBWFC.

You are right though in that I don't know what other people may have offered for the shares but the liquidator does and I trust his professional judgement over what was the best course of action in the situation (which in turn ensures the loans repayment to BM) to your wacko ramblings and musings.

I'm not prepared to waste anymore time trying to help put right your fantasy bollocks.

I'll stick to the facts and the legal and business nous of Anderson, BM and the official liquidator instead.

Sluffy wrote:
I'll stick to the facts and the legal and business nous of Anderson, BM and the official liquidator instead.

Good and please bear that in mind when I express an opinion or speculation on the forum which is usually contextualised by "IMO" or "I think" or "It looks like" or "perhaps" etc etc before you jump down my throat as if I'd stated it as fact.

The forum would be a lot worse off without speculation. Imagine the team we'd have if Bogger's transfer rumours were actually true for example.