You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers News » REVEALED: Bolton Wanderers' £25m of company creditors

REVEALED: Bolton Wanderers' £25m of company creditors

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
A REPORT issued by Wanderers’ administrators has revealed an eyewatering £25million in company creditors.

The document, seen by The Bolton News, is a statutory requirement after eight weeks in administration and lists 294 different secured and non-secured creditors, including a whopping £10,050,000 owed to the Fildraw Trust, who manage the affairs of late owner Eddie Davies.

Outgoing owner Ken Anderson is owed £1,578,042 as a secured creditor and a further £180,000 unsecured, and the club has run up a debt to former vice chairman Brett Warburton of £3,064,213.

Wanderers owe £2,747,122 to football creditors, including players and coaching staff.

Although it is too early to give an exact figure, administrators are currently forecasting a return of 35 pence in the pound to unsecured creditors.

In that scenario, Bolton Council will see only £612,053 for the £1,748,724 they are owed in business rates and other services.

HMRC would also receive less than £1m of the near £2.5m owed in tax and VAT.

Yu Energy, who have supplied gas and electricity to the stadium and training ground, are owed more than £521,000. Another £85,391 is owed to water company United Utilities.

Several football agencies are listed in the document, the largest of which is Stellar at £371,288.

Debts have also racked up to the emergency services including North West Ambulance (£22,166) and Greater Manchester Police (£18,543) and St John’s Ambulance (£6,950).

A debt of £42,361 is payable to Sibcas, the Atherton-based company who lease offices and changing rooms to Wanderers at their Lostock training ground.

Wanderers also ran up a bill of more than £6,000 to local bakery Carrs Pasties.

Secured creditors

Fildraw/Moonshift 10,050,000
Brett Warburton 3,064,213
Ken Anderson 1,578,042
Prescot Business Park Uncertain
 
Unsecured creditors (selected)

Football creditors 2,747,122
HMRC PAYE/NI 2,252,974
Bolton Council 1,748,724
Yu Energy (stadium electric) 459,443
Stellar Football – FA 371,288
Macron 322,619
Prescot Business Park 248,352
HMRC VAT 217,487
Ken Anderson 180,000
PJSL Limited 169,800
Base Soccer Agency 113,067
Unique Sports Management 98,036
Adi UK Ltd 97,032
Thomas Cook Retail 92,124
United Utilities 85,391
Walker Morris 71,340
Dr David Humphreys 71,014
Bolton Arena 69,685
Ticketmaster Sports 60,352
Strike Management (via FA) 60,000
Yu Energy (stadium gas) 57,977
Matchday workers 57,624
Key Sports Management 54,600
Brabners 52,460
Emerson Management 44,318
Sibcas Ltd 42,361
Players Inc Limited 36,225
Impact SM Ltd 34,397
Pridemile Ltd 30,313
HCA International 29,542
Water Plus (Lostock) 29,283
OmniSports 28,125
PPL PRS Ltd 25,847
RS Tyrer Ltd 22,901
North West Ambulance 22,166
Platinum One Sports 21,840
Pinnacle Sports & Ents 20,040
Greater Manchester Police 18,543

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17759608.revealed-bolton-wanderers-25m-company-creditors/

terenceanne

terenceanne
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
They owe Carr's Pasties six grand.....that's the final straw in my mind.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@terenceanne wrote:They owe Carr's Pasties six grand.....that's the final straw in my mind.
 And that was just for the idiot full kit wanker son of Anderson i bet  Very Happy

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
Hard to back the c**t now Sluffy, he hasn't paid any fucker for many a month.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@MartinBWFC wrote:Hard to back the c**t now Sluffy, he hasn't paid any fucker for many a month.

Ffs have you not understood anything I've said over the last three years?

First and foremost is that it is the CLUB that hasn't been paying anyone (not Ken) and the simple reason for that is that the club has run for years with a trading debt and when Eddie expectantly died there was no one left to fund it.

It's not really hard to understand.

Even the new owners know that they are going to have to fund the clubs next TWO YEAR TRADING LOSSES because the EFL want to see proof that they can keep the club going at least for that long.

You either have a club that is self sufficient or someone willing to pick up the tab for the shortfall.

The club is no where close to being self sufficient - hence the need to show a future two year funding of expected trading losses - or have someone like Eddie putting his hand in his pocket when it was needed.

When Eddie passed on the inevitable happened.

Simple as that.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
It may be legally acceptable to say the club is responsible for all the debts but seeing as Kenocchio owned 94.5% of the club then morally it stinks to high heaven.
We all know he thought he could make a fast buck and sell us on for a profit but he was out of his depth and nearly caused one of the oldest clubs in the land to go into liquidation.

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
THE CLUB ffs what does that actually mean? Anderson was the custodian of THE CLUB, with 94.5% shares, so he was THE CLUB, he alone is/was responsible for payments to staff and suppliers, a job he failed miserably to do, so in Sluffy's world Anderson did all he could to make BWFC a sustainable unit, but it was THE CLUB that caused us to nearly fold, aye alreet.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@MartinBWFC wrote:THE CLUB ffs what does that actually mean? Anderson was the custodian of THE CLUB, with 94.5% shares, so he was THE CLUB, he alone is/was responsible for payments to staff and suppliers, a job he failed miserably to do, so in Sluffy's world Anderson did all he could to make BWFC a sustainable unit, but it was THE CLUB that caused us to nearly fold, aye alreet.

You are Norpig are both wrong.

Norpig let me try and explain it in this way -

You work for the NHS and as such it is public funded by the tax payer but your employer is not the tax payer it is the organisation you work for North Manchester NHS Trust or whoever it is you do work for.

If some unfortunate mistake happens it is the Trust that is liable for it - not the Trustees of the Trust.

The North Manchester is the 'legal entity' - that can sue and be sued - and not the Trustees of it.

If for some reason you don't get paid for a few months it is the North Manchester you look to get your money from - again not the Trustees.

If you upset one of the Trustees in some way, they can not fire you, only the North Manchester can.

Even if your mum is Chair of the Trustees and you want to take Monday off, she can't give you permission, only the authorised persons at the North Manchester can.

So if the North Manchester runs up a debt of say £10m (like it seems the club have - unsecured creditors), it won't be the Trustees that will have to pay the £10m by bankrupting themselves.

It's not the Trustees (who are tantamount to being the owners of the North Manchester whilst they are in that position) it is the legal entity, the North Manchester that does.

Are they morally wrong every time your hospital makes a loss - do you think they should pay all the overspend rather than someone like the Government (think Eddie Davies for us) bailing them out all of the time.

Martin - continue to think what you like - as Forest Gump puts it so well in such instances - "stupid is as stupid does".

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
The fucking leech now claims he owed £7.5m, now how does he come to claim that much, maybe our class genius can explain that one.

https://t.co/ueW2jOUdAx

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@MartinBWFC wrote:The fucking leech now claims he owed £7.5m, now how does he come to claim that much, maybe our class genius can explain that one.

https://t.co/ueW2jOUdAx

It's not difficult if you bothered listening to what I say rather than believe what the likes of social media spouts.

The Administrator is the courts legal representative, his word goes.

If Anderson wants to challenge him he has to do so in court and prove that he was right and the Administrator (and his ten forensic accountants were wrong).

He's not going to be able to do that is he.

So there is no story here.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy you have turned being patronising into an art form, The NHS is absolutely nothing like a football club, in fact no other business is anything like football.

Can you not see that whatever the legalities of it all, that KA as majority owner has some responsibility to have run the club in a much better way? He must have known what kind of debts he was inheriting and if he didn't then he was very naive. As i said before he thought he could turn a fast profit and got caught out.

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Sluffy wrote:
@MartinBWFC wrote:The fucking leech now claims he owed £7.5m, now how does he come to claim that much, maybe our class genius can explain that one.

https://t.co/ueW2jOUdAx

It's not difficult if you bothered listening to what I say rather than believe what the likes of social media spouts.

The Administrator is the courts legal representative, his word goes.

If Anderson wants to challenge him he has to do so in court and prove that he was right and the Administrator (and his ten forensic accountants were wrong).

He's not going to be able to do that is he.

So there is no story here.


The story is that Anderson is trying to claim £6 million more than the forensic accountants have claimed.

While the club is literally on its knees - a situation which, regardless of your view of Anderson, he has to take at least some blame for.

So don’t claim there’s no story and don’t patronise other posters - it’s a perfectly legitimate position to be irritated at this situation.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:Sluffy you have turned being patronising into an art form, The NHS is absolutely nothing like a football club, in fact no other business is anything like football.

Can you not see that whatever the legalities of it all, that KA as majority owner has some responsibility to have run the club in a much better way? He must have known what kind of debts he was inheriting and if he didn't then he was very naive. As i said before he thought he could turn a fast profit and got caught out.

Mate I give up.

I've tried to explain things as best I can to try my best to help you understand what's going on in real life - the law - what can and can't be done - rather than the idealised world you wish we all lived in.

You can think and believe what you want but it doesn't make it correct, or even realistic to what has actually gone on.

Holdsworth and Anderson came to the club to earn money for themselves.

Joint Ventures will be here to do exactly the same.

We've been told all sorts of horror stories about what Anderson was doing to the club and a vast majority of people believed it without one shred of proof. Well we've had an officer of the court and ten forensic accountants going through the books for the last eight weeks - and you know what, they don't appear to have found anything untoward that Ken has actually done.

You and the likes of Martin can continue to believe the made up bile of Wanderlust and many, many others about him, I'll stick with what those who not only know what they are talking about but can imprison people for any corrupt and illegal practices they discover in their forensic audits.

If Anderson was only a fraction as bad as some made out he'd be locked up in the Tower of London and the key to his cell thrown into the River Thames.

But he isn't is he?

Doesn't that tell you nothing at all?



Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
@MartinBWFC wrote:The fucking leech now claims he owed £7.5m, now how does he come to claim that much, maybe our class genius can explain that one.

https://t.co/ueW2jOUdAx

It's not difficult if you bothered listening to what I say rather than believe what the likes of social media spouts.

The Administrator is the courts legal representative, his word goes.

If Anderson wants to challenge him he has to do so in court and prove that he was right and the Administrator (and his ten forensic accountants were wrong).

He's not going to be able to do that is he.

So there is no story here.


The story is that Anderson is trying to claim £6 million more than the forensic accountants have claimed.

While the club is literally on its knees - a situation which, regardless of your view of Anderson, he has to take at least some blame for.

So don’t claim there’s no story and don’t patronise other posters - it’s a perfectly legitimate position to be irritated at this situation.

Eh???

Once again you jump into to start an argument with me, completely oblivious of what I've been talking about.

I said there was no story there' in relation to Anderson thinking he has a case for the £5m or so more than the Administrator states he has as secured assets.


The club ran out of money - that's an undeniable fact and attested to with the ten forensic accountants going through the books for the last eight weeks.

The Administrator is the representative of the court and has powers to have people arrested.

The undeniable fact is that he's not had Anderson locked up for anything he's found so far, so I think it reasonable to say that KA doesn't appear to have raped and pillaged the club as widely believed by many, without any proof to back up such allegations.

Similarly he doesn't seem to have been criticised so far by the Administrator as to how the club was run.

Also and somewhat miraculously the Administrator also records that not only did KA have £1.6m as secured credits he also had £180k as an unsecured creditor too.

Wow how can that be even possible with all the times people have claimed he had put a penny of his own money into the club?

Ill take my guidance from the Administrators findings and not what the lynch mob on social media has led nearly everybody to believe, thank you very much.

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
So Anderson is making a false claim that he is owed £7.5 million by the club?

Definition of a leech then I’m sure you’d agree?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y wrote:So Anderson is making a false claim that he is owed £7.5 million by the club?

Definition of a leech then I’m sure you’d agree?

No I don't - and you are just desperate to argue.

Anderson had a claim he felt was legitimate ruled out by the Administrator.

So too has Eddie Davies Estate for a similar amount - would you consider them leaches - or are you just selective in who you choose to suit getting an argument going.

You've not even attempted to do any homework on the background information to get your wumming started.

Poor attempt

You used to be much better at this.

I won't be biting any more if you can't be arsed to put the effort in.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
‘Eh’ yourself.

Martin called a man who has been a large part of our current situation a leech - for claiming an extra £6million on top of the substantial payment he’s already had.

You start rattling on about the Eddie Davies Family.

We’re talking about Ken, Martins comment is fair. Your condescension is not, opposing opinions to your own are still valid.

Hipster_Nebula

Hipster_Nebula
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Goodness me what a mess. You have to laugh. 

These no bodies coming in think they can manage this disfunction.

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
Basically BWFC (Burnden Leisure or whatever trading name it operates under) and Ken Anderson are two completely different entities as far as the law is concerned. While Ken may own the majority of shares in BWFC it does not mean he IS BWFC.

The debts that have been accrued by Bolton Wanderers are NOT legally his PERSONAL responsibility, they are the company's and the company's alone. To keep banging on about moral responsibility when it's been made clear to everyone any number of times that they are in this case irrelevant is facile at best and mostly petulant. Ken has done nothing wrong in law, a huge group of highly qualified accountants and a well respected administrator have already shown that.

And if you wish to talk about moral responsibility then how about Dean Holdsworth? Surely he must be morally responsible for the BluMarble/Sportshield fiasco that helped to generate this mess to begin with? Or Eddie Davies who chose to pull out of the club the moment Premier League money stopped coming in? What about the massive debts incurred under Phil Gartside's chairmanship when Eddie was taking multi million pound "success" fees from the club whenever it sold a player for profit such as Anelka?

It seems to me this "moral outrage" about Ken is more than a little one sided and blinkered beyond belief. While I accept Ken has made many mistakes this constant banging on about his "corruption" and his alleged plans to make some huge profit by bankrupting the club has all been proven to be hogwash to this point. At worst he's proven to be a bad businessman and has certainly made a personal loss to date so why do people seem to feel he's somehow obliged to lose yet more especially when the customers of the organisation keep pillorying the man?

Perhaps certain people have their own agenda that benefits from making unfounded unproven allegations and continuing to make them even when documentary proof of the opposite has been provided by qualified and unbiased professionals.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@luckyPeterpiper wrote:Basically BWFC (Burnden Leisure or whatever trading name it operates under) and Ken Anderson are two completely different entities as far as the law is concerned. While Ken may own the majority of shares in BWFC it does not mean he IS BWFC.

The debts that have been accrued by Bolton Wanderers are NOT legally his PERSONAL responsibility, they are the company's and the company's alone. To keep banging on about moral responsibility when it's been made clear to everyone any number of times that they are in this case irrelevant is facile at best and mostly petulant. Ken has done nothing wrong in law, a huge group of highly qualified accountants and a well respected administrator have already shown that.

And if you wish to talk about moral responsibility then how about Dean Holdsworth? Surely he must be morally responsible for the BluMarble/Sportshield fiasco that helped to generate this mess to begin with? Or Eddie Davies who chose to pull out of the club the moment Premier League money stopped coming in? What about the massive debts incurred under Phil Gartside's chairmanship when Eddie was taking multi million pound "success" fees from the club whenever it sold a player for profit such as Anelka?

It seems to me this "moral outrage" about Ken is more than a little one sided and blinkered beyond belief. While I accept Ken has made many mistakes this constant banging on about his "corruption" and his alleged plans to make some huge profit by bankrupting the club has all been proven to be hogwash to this point. At worst he's proven to be a bad businessman and has certainly made a personal loss to date so why do people seem to feel he's somehow obliged to lose yet more especially when the customers of the organisation keep pillorying the man?

Perhaps certain people have their own agenda that benefits from making unfounded unproven allegations and continuing to make them even when documentary proof of the opposite has been provided by qualified and unbiased professionals.

You forgot to sign back into the "sluffy" username.

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Now, now Tasha! Very Happy

sunlight

sunlight
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Bolton Council?

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
@Natasha Whittam wrote:
@luckyPeterpiper wrote:Basically BWFC (Burnden Leisure or whatever trading name it operates under) and Ken Anderson are two completely different entities as far as the law is concerned. While Ken may own the majority of shares in BWFC it does not mean he IS BWFC.

The debts that have been accrued by Bolton Wanderers are NOT legally his PERSONAL responsibility, they are the company's and the company's alone. To keep banging on about moral responsibility when it's been made clear to everyone any number of times that they are in this case irrelevant is facile at best and mostly petulant. Ken has done nothing wrong in law, a huge group of highly qualified accountants and a well respected administrator have already shown that.

And if you wish to talk about moral responsibility then how about Dean Holdsworth? Surely he must be morally responsible for the BluMarble/Sportshield fiasco that helped to generate this mess to begin with? Or Eddie Davies who chose to pull out of the club the moment Premier League money stopped coming in? What about the massive debts incurred under Phil Gartside's chairmanship when Eddie was taking multi million pound "success" fees from the club whenever it sold a player for profit such as Anelka?

It seems to me this "moral outrage" about Ken is more than a little one sided and blinkered beyond belief. While I accept Ken has made many mistakes this constant banging on about his "corruption" and his alleged plans to make some huge profit by bankrupting the club has all been proven to be hogwash to this point. At worst he's proven to be a bad businessman and has certainly made a personal loss to date so why do people seem to feel he's somehow obliged to lose yet more especially when the customers of the organisation keep pillorying the man?

Perhaps certain people have their own agenda that benefits from making unfounded unproven allegations and continuing to make them even when documentary proof of the opposite has been provided by qualified and unbiased professionals.

You forgot to sign back into the "sluffy" username.
When you start to deal with anything that remotely resembles an actual fact I'll be interested in what you have to say. Until then .... Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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