Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » When tax is too taxing.

When tax is too taxing.

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 5]

91When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Tue Mar 10 2020, 16:30

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Natasha Whittam wrote:Look at all these bellends claiming to be Ronaldo.

When you've scored a 25 yard volley at Deepdale with a broken ankle, then you can post about your football exploits.
Very Happy

92When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Tue Mar 10 2020, 20:20

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:It is of academic interest but Ken Anderson's lawyers had filed notice of a charge as security for the money KA lent to the club (or BL).

The problem with the Administrators was that they didn't even recognise the loan, let alone the security for the loan. Yet Blumarble had been paid off. The money must have come from somewhere.

The Administrators Statement had the appearance of an attempt to improve the position of the Eddie Davies Trust but it made no logical sense. The result, it seems to me, was a double administration with all the consequential additional costs and delays.

I'm sure FGR were a football creditor for a disputed amount and would have thought Sharon and Emma went to FGR to try to get it agreed. In other words, a personal charm offensive was likely to get a better result than telephone calls and correspondence.

Vince Btw had another whinge about it all in the accounts that were recently filed late. Read it with a pinch of salt.

I agree that the charge was registered however I never understood how it could have been?

Obviously I bow to your expertise on these matters but on a simplistic approach my thinking was this -

Were all assets already fully secured at the time when KA 'secured' his loan (which I believe they were according to the book valuations at the time) if so what exactly did he secure it on?

If the money was to release BM's security on the hotel (which it was) then how could the money be spent to settle BM's claim, yet still be there to secure the assets that had just been released?

So I came to the same conclusion that the Administrators also did, namely the money was put in (presumably as a cash injection by the sole owner - equity?) to directly settle the BM debt and NOT intended to be used as security on assets that already had been covered to their full value.

Whether my thinking is right in law is another thing but I guess if the Administrator construed similar thinking as I did, then perhaps I was at least in the same ball park as him?

I've no idea why the Administration was done in two and if so why PBP didn't appoint the hotel Administrator rather than KA - they were after all the people first in line who it seems at the time believed their £5.5m security covered the entirety of the assets worth?

As for FGR, my understanding fwiw, is that they were a creditor but possibly not a football one (or at least not for everything they claimed).

There seemed to me to be two issues, the first the wages FGR paid for the player whilst he was on loan to us and the second for 'breach' of contract by not signing him for £1m.

I would suspect the wages (being the lesser sum) was a footballing creditor - and thus paid when the club came out of Administration and into FV's ownership - but wonder if the contract dispute was treated differently - and as such became an unsecured creditor amount?

My reason for thinking this is how can you determine the value of the contract in that it presumably had numerous clauses and 'breaks' within it?

At the time I seem to recall Iles saying something along the lines that although the headline amount was £1m, it was never actually amount to anything like that in reality?

Maybe it was this part of FGR's claim that was set to one side when FV bought the club and brought it out of Administration (so not included as a football creditor as such, which would have need settling in full before Administration could be concluded) and Sharon's charm offensive some time later on her visit to Vince agreeing to the settlement of the matter and associated payments?

I'm really just guessing but it does seem to be the most plausible scenario that anyone has come up with so far?
Sorry Sluffy, but no.

Its not easy to follow or explain in simple words but the documents filed at Companies  House between 24 September 2018 and 2 October 2018 set out the nature of Ken Anderson's security and the prior charges that were settled.

It seemed to me evident that there was something materially wrong with the Administrators statements. They simply weren't credible in relation to the settlement of the Blumarble debt or the trading position of the club, but what could Anderson's lawyers do about it?

What they could do and what the Anderson team seemed to have done was to appoint administrators themselves to the Hotel scuppering Rubins plan. Plainly the club administrators weren't happy but, so far as I can see, they had brought it on themselves.

So far as  Doidge was concerned, the exact details are not known but there was plainly an attempt by Vince and others to infer that Anderson had reneged on paying Doidge's wages when it would appear that he hadn't agreed to do this at all. He didn't have the money and therefore arranged a postponement deal in the hope that when the settlement date came round he would have. Did he know he was in the last chance saloon? Well yes, but there might have been a bit of reason to hope that summat could have been pulled off.

PBP btw have filed their latest accounts. They have done quite well and appear confident that the £5.5m loan is secure.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Tue Mar 10 2020, 20:50; edited 1 time in total

93When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Tue Mar 10 2020, 20:32

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@boltonbonce wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
@boltonbonce wrote:Are you suggesting my slippers are a joke?! Is Bob calling me a nitwit? Outrageous.

I'm going on strike.
I don't think you're a nitwit, Boncey, and I have found our exchanges entertaining.

If I have a criticism, it is that I think you would benefit a lot from widening the scope of your reading.

But I've said that before haven't I?
My reading tastes are eclectic. Sadly, they don't stretch to the financial tomes you'd like me to read. 

Why don't you join the ST and put your knowledge to good use? They're looking for people like you.
They aren't looking for people like me, Boncey. I'd be as welcome as a fart in a phone booth.

94When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Tue Mar 10 2020, 20:46

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Forget lion taming and stacking shelves at Kwiksave, Bonsey, there's nowt to beat chartered accountancy. Ask Daniel's brother.

95When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Tue Mar 10 2020, 21:46

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@karlypants wrote:
@boltonbonce wrote:I was offered a trial at Rochdale by Bob Stokoe, so stick that in your pipes and smoke it.

Kept that quiet didn't I.
Probably a good thing nothing came of it then with you being accident prone.

You would be out injured like Mavies was! Laughing
Cheeky bugger. I was a sight to behold. Some might say beautiful.

96When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Tue Mar 10 2020, 23:41

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@MartinBWFC wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
I've called him a nutjob and a moonman - how does that compare to what he's called me over the years or what Martin abused Bob with the other day?

There's simply no comparison - nor double standards on my part.
And what would that be? telling him to post non BWFC stuff elsewhere is not abuse as far as I'm concerned.

No it isn't but telling him to 'fuck off' and that he posts 'absolute shite' most definitely is.

@MartinBWFC wrote:Fuck off with your non BWFC football shit 10 bob, custard or any other names you go by. there's other places to post your absolute shite.

97When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 00:13

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy, but no.

Its not easy to follow or explain in simple words but the documents filed at Companies  House between 24 September 2018 and 2 October 2018 set out the nature of Ken Anderson's security and the prior charges that were settled.

It seemed to me evident that there was something materially wrong with the Administrators statements. They simply weren't credible in relation to the settlement of the Blumarble debt or the trading position of the club, but what could Anderson's lawyers do about it?

What they could do and what the Anderson team seemed to have done was to appoint administrators themselves to the Hotel scuppering Rubins plan. Plainly the club administrators weren't happy but, so far as I can see, they had brought it on themselves.

So far as  Doidge was concerned, the exact details are not known but there was plainly an attempt by Vince and others to infer that Anderson had reneged on paying Doidge's wages when it would appear that he hadn't agreed to do this at all. He didn't have the money and therefore arranged a postponement deal in the hope that when the settlement date came round he would have. Did he know he was in the last chance saloon? Well yes, but there might have been a bit of reason to hope that summat could have been pulled off.

PBP btw have filed their latest accounts. They have done quite well and appear confident that the £5.5m loan is secure.

No need to be sorry Bob, I'm happy to bow to your expertise but I still can't square a number of things in my mind.

I'm not asking for an explanation as the horse has long since bolted but one of the things I can't understand is why EDT simply didn't apply for Administration for the hotel as well and stop the two Administrators approach before it even started?

Didn't the debenture against Burnden Leisure dated November 2002 give them that right?

Even if it didn't why didn't PBP?

Instead the door was left open - presumably deliberately - for Anderson to seek the hotel Administration and appoint 'his man'.

EDT, PBP and Anderson must all have known the merry dance that was to follow - and as far as I can see, all deliberately allowed it to happen.

The other major thing I don't understand is that to be a 'secured' creditor, I was always under the impression that there had to be some 'assets' available to secure against - no?

If so what where are these assets Anderson was supposed to have secured against because there obviously doesn't seem to have been £5m available to one or both of the Administrators when they listed what they found during their Administration tenure - which suggests to me that there wasn't any - and thus the £5m could not be 'secured'?

As I say I'm happy to accept your word that I've not understood all the underlying accountancy reasons and subtleties and leave it at that.



Last edited by Sluffy on Wed Mar 11 2020, 01:06; edited 1 time in total

98When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 00:32

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@boltonbonce wrote:I was offered a trial at Rochdale by Bob Stokoe, so stick that in your pipes and smoke it.

Kept that quiet didn't I.

You might even have made it if you hadn't played in slippers.

I once played in a RL trial for Leigh once, that indirectly led to them signing Des Drummond who went on to play for the Great Britain team (I think he went on to even captain them but I might be wrong about that?).

99When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 01:24

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Sluffy wrote:
@wanderlust wrote:You're actually jealous. Wow!

Err No!

How did you ever come to that conclusion?

mentalist
/ˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
noun
noun: mentalist; plural noun: mentalists

informal•British
an eccentric or mad person.

Again, interesting editing by you. The actual definition is:


mentalist1
/ˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
noun
noun: mentalist; plural noun: mentalists
1.
a magician who performs feats that apparently demonstrate extraordinary mental powers, such as mind-reading.




..so thanks for that, but I'm not actually a magician. Nor do I claim to be although I could have a decent guess at what's going on in your bitter mind.





...and FYI I'm not "nearly 70" as you keep saying. I'm in my mid 60's and reasonably fit so far, so will you please just f*** off and let me enjoy every last minute I can get playing the game I love whilst I can still play it. I know it won't last but I'm bloody well determined to do it as long as I possibly can and the day that I'm the worst player on the park will be the day I pack it in - but that isn't yet. When that day comes I'll be sure to let you know so you can crack one off whilst typing how you were right all along.

100When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 07:54

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy, but no.

Its not easy to follow or explain in simple words but the documents filed at Companies  House between 24 September 2018 and 2 October 2018 set out the nature of Ken Anderson's security and the prior charges that were settled.

It seemed to me evident that there was something materially wrong with the Administrators statements. They simply weren't credible in relation to the settlement of the Blumarble debt or the trading position of the club, but what could Anderson's lawyers do about it?

What they could do and what the Anderson team seemed to have done was to appoint administrators themselves to the Hotel scuppering Rubins plan. Plainly the club administrators weren't happy but, so far as I can see, they had brought it on themselves.

So far as  Doidge was concerned, the exact details are not known but there was plainly an attempt by Vince and others to infer that Anderson had reneged on paying Doidge's wages when it would appear that he hadn't agreed to do this at all. He didn't have the money and therefore arranged a postponement deal in the hope that when the settlement date came round he would have. Did he know he was in the last chance saloon? Well yes, but there might have been a bit of reason to hope that summat could have been pulled off.

PBP btw have filed their latest accounts. They have done quite well and appear confident that the £5.5m loan is secure.

No need to be sorry Bob, I'm happy to bow to your expertise but I still can't square a number of things in my mind.

I'm not asking for an explanation as the horse has long since bolted but one of the things I can't understand is why EDT simply didn't apply for Administration for the hotel as well and stop the two Administrators approach before it even started?

Didn't the debenture against Burnden Leisure dated November 2002 give them that right?

Even if it didn't why didn't PBP?

Instead the door was left open - presumably deliberately - for Anderson to seek the hotel Administration and appoint 'his man'.

EDT, PBP and Anderson must all have known the merry dance that was to follow - and as far as I can see, all deliberately allowed it to happen.

The other major thing I don't understand is that to be a 'secured' creditor, I was always under the impression that there had to be some 'assets' available to secure against - no?

If so what where are these assets Anderson was supposed to have secured against because there obviously doesn't seem to have been £5m available to one or both of the Administrators when they listed what they found during their Administration tenure - which suggests to me that there wasn't any - and thus the £5m could not be 'secured'?

As I say I'm happy to accept your word that I've not understood all the underlying accountancy reasons and subtleties and leave it at that.
Its not really accountancy, Sluffy, its just business. Everyone trying to protect their own positions against a tidal wave of problems.

Ken Anderson had never agreed to fund BWFC's debts but when he borrowed £5m from Eddie to pay off Blumarble and keep the club afloat he'd done just that and put himself in the firing line. To protect himself (and his family) he took every bit of security there was available, allowing for the fact that there were other unsatisfied charges including PBP's on the hotel.

I expect that before the 'merry dance' there had been skirmishings involving notice being given of the intentions of different parties and a significant amount of disagreement and bad feeling. If it had been in the interests of PBP or EDT to put the hotel into administration and further frustrate KA they might have done it but I doubt that any of them wanted any of these outcomes.

But with the club having lost in excess of £4m in the 2018/19 year, it was simply impossible for the club debt to have gone down in the way implied by the Administrators statement. The Blumarble debt hadn't evaporated into thin air, it had been replaced by a debt owed to Ken Anderson with Anderson taking the same security that Blumarble had (plus a bit more from memory). All the details are on the Companies House website

As for Sharon and Emma's visit to FGR, I don't doubt that there would have been prior discussions  but I'd expect Sharon to prefer to use her undoubted skills on a person to person basis rather than over the phone. Vince seems to me to be extremely vain, so mix a bit of flattery with a bit of anti-Ken dust and sprinkle it over him and hey presto, job done.

101When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 08:32

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

...and FYI I'm not "nearly 70" as you keep saying. I'm in my mid 60's and reasonably fit so far, so will you please just f*** off and let me enjoy every last minute I can get playing the game I love whilst I can still play it. I know it won't last but I'm bloody well determined to do it as long as I possibly can and the day that I'm the worst player on the park will be the day I pack it in - but that isn't yet. When that day comes I'll be sure to let you know so you can crack one off whilst typing how you were right all along.
 If that was the case with me i would have packed in years ago  Very Happy

102When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 08:39

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
As its  the second anniversary of Ken Dodd's death today, a few Doddy jokes wouldn't go amiss



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Sat Mar 14 2020, 14:24; edited 1 time in total

103When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 08:43

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
You've ruined enough threads going off tangent already Ten Bob so keep your trap shut  Very Happy

104When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 08:46

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Am I allowed to say that this thread is supposed to be about Dale Vince and tax dodging? But as its  the second anniversary of Ken Dodd's death today, a few Doddy jokes wouldn't go amiss
Ken Dodd is dead. Why wasn't I told? 

 On his famous tax fraud trial: "I told the Inland Revenue I didn't owe them a penny because I lived near the seaside."

105When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 08:49

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I have one of these that may get shoved up a members arse due to my current mood unless it improves Twisted Evil

When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 9k=

106When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 08:50

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@boltonbonce wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Am I allowed to say that this thread is supposed to be about Dale Vince and tax dodging? But as its  the second anniversary of Ken Dodd's death today, a few Doddy jokes wouldn't go amiss
Ken Dodd is dead. Why wasn't I told? 

 On his famous tax fraud trial: "I told the Inland Revenue I didn't owe them a penny because I lived near the seaside."
The trouble with Freud is that he never played the Glasgow Empire on a Saturday night after Rangers and Celtic had both lost.

107When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 08:55

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@karlypants wrote:I have one of these that may get shoved up a members arse due to my current mood unless it improves Twisted Evil

When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 9k=
You'll have to take it out of your own arse first KP  Very Happy

108When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 10:32

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
A couple of interesting comments from Ecotricity Group's latest Annual Report:


  • 'The Group operates a 'not for dividend' model which enables the re-investment of profits back into the mission'. You bet it does. Tax has to be paid on dividends by the recipients. As for 're-investment of profits', there haven't been any for several years.
  • 'The financial position of the Group remains strong with net assets at £54,477K'. Only because of an historic upward re-valuation of assets when the Group were actually reporting small profits. Its now reporting large losses.

109When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 12:13

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Its not really accountancy, Sluffy, its just business. Everyone trying to protect their own positions against a tidal wave of problems.

Ken Anderson had never agreed to fund BWFC's debts but when he borrowed £5m from Eddie to pay off Blumarble and keep the club afloat he'd done just that and put himself in the firing line. To protect himself (and his family) he took every bit of security there was available, allowing for the fact that there were other unsatisfied charges including PBP's on the hotel.

I expect that before the 'merry dance' there had been skirmishings involving notice being given of the intentions of different parties and a significant amount of disagreement and bad feeling. If it had been in the interests of PBP or EDT to put the hotel into administration and further frustrate KA they might have done it but I doubt that any of them wanted any of these outcomes.

But with the club having lost in excess of £4m in the 2018/19 year, it was simply impossible for the club debt to have gone down in the way implied by the Administrators statement. The Blumarble debt hadn't evaporated into thin
air, it had been replaced by a debt owed to Ken Anderson with Anderson taking the same security that Blumarble had (plus a bit more from memory). All the details are on the Companies House website

As for Sharon and Emma's visit to FGR, I don't doubt that there would have been prior discussions  but I'd expect Sharon to prefer to use her undoubted skills on a person to person basis rather than over the phone. Vince seems to me to be extremely vain, so mix a bit of flattery with a bit of anti-Ken dust and sprinkle it over him and hey presto, job done.

Thanks Bob.

Just out of interest IF the £5m was seen by the Administrator to be an equity input into the business by its owner rather than a loan secured on assets and used to pay off BM would that explain the above?

Maybe the BM loan was never secured on any assets other than on paper and was never intended to be anything other than a 'bridging loan' type thing whilst Holdsworth brought in his 'moneyman'.

Anderson tells us that the BM was to be redeemed just 16 days from when he bought the club with Holdsworth and claimed he knew nothing about it.

If that had happened and BM was paid on time everything would have been ok.

Whilst the club was trading it wasn't an issue as such (ok it still had to be paid back and all that went with it) but as in a game of musical chairs when the music stopped and everything had to be sorted out, it would have resulted in their not being enough assets to pay all those listed as secured and the Johnny come lately to the game - BM, being the one who would have lost out?

The same scenario as played out with Ken's 'secured' loan?

That's basically what I think this has all been about, namely the plan was for Holdsworth (and/or his partner) to put £5m equity into the club, he couldn't, took out the BM loan hoping that his newest partner - KA, would, who told him he was never here to do that - and this fatal mismatch of initial expectations led to all that went on to happen with Anderson protecting himself from any personal loss.

110When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 12:17

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@wanderlust wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
@wanderlust wrote:You're actually jealous. Wow!

Err No!

How did you ever come to that conclusion?

mentalist
/ˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
noun
noun: mentalist; plural noun: mentalists

informal•British
an eccentric or mad person.

Again, interesting editing by you. The actual definition is:


mentalist1
/ˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
noun
noun: mentalist; plural noun: mentalists
1.
a magician who performs feats that apparently demonstrate extraordinary mental powers, such as mind-reading.




..so thanks for that, but I'm not actually a magician. Nor do I claim to be although I could have a decent guess at what's going on in your bitter mind.





...and FYI I'm not "nearly 70" as you keep saying. I'm in my mid 60's and reasonably fit so far, so will you please just f*** off and let me enjoy every last minute I can get playing the game I love whilst I can still play it. I know it won't last but I'm bloody well determined to do it as long as I possibly can and the day that I'm the worst player on the park will be the day I pack it in - but that isn't yet. When that day comes I'll be sure to let you know so you can crack one off whilst typing how you were right all along.

meltdown
/ˈmɛltdaʊn/
noun
noun: meltdown; plural noun: meltdowns
1.
a disastrous collapse or breakdown.

Very Happy

111When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 12:19

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
wum
It is an acronym meaning [url=https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wind-Up Merchant]Wind-Up Merchant[/url]. 

It refers to someone who posts on message boards and newsgroups  with the intention to cause as much disruption as possible by goading  others.

He's a WUM , just ignore  his posts .

112When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 12:26

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Norpig wrote:wum
It is an acronym meaning [url=https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wind-Up Merchant]Wind-Up Merchant[/url]. 

It refers to someone who posts on message boards and newsgroups  with the intention to cause as much disruption as possible by goading  others.

He's a WUM , just ignore  his posts .

flirt
/fləːt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: flirting

   1.
   behave as though sexually attracted to someone, but playfully rather than with serious intentions.

113When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 12:30

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Who am i flirting with KP?

114When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 12:31

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Norpig wrote:Who am i flirting with KP?
:facepalm: It wasn’t aimed at you mate :biggrin:

115When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Wed Mar 11 2020, 12:57

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Bob might like to have a look at the mess developing at poor old Charlton. Talk about out of the frying pan.

116When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 07:31

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
As predicted, Rishi Sunak has taken a cleaver to Entrepreneurs Relief reducing the lifetime allowance to £1m from £10m. Maybe not good news for Dale Vince.


And here's Mr Sunak having a go at 'aggressive tax avoidance' as referred to recently in this thread.


https://www.ftadviser.com/your-industry/2020/03/11/budget-2020-funding-pledged-for-4-4bn-hmrc-evasion-crackdown/

Tbf, most of the former BWFC players and managers referred to were not at BWFC at the time they bought into the film schemes. Some might also have been relatively inexperienced and badly advised but the combination of self-satisfied, high-horsed media luvvies (no names mentioned) and aggressive tax avoidance just grates.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Sat Mar 14 2020, 14:25; edited 3 times in total

117When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 07:51

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Its not really accountancy, Sluffy, its just business. Everyone trying to protect their own positions against a tidal wave of problems.

Ken Anderson had never agreed to fund BWFC's debts but when he borrowed £5m from Eddie to pay off Blumarble and keep the club afloat he'd done just that and put himself in the firing line. To protect himself (and his family) he took every bit of security there was available, allowing for the fact that there were other unsatisfied charges including PBP's on the hotel.

I expect that before the 'merry dance' there had been skirmishings involving notice being given of the intentions of different parties and a significant amount of disagreement and bad feeling. If it had been in the interests of PBP or EDT to put the hotel into administration and further frustrate KA they might have done it but I doubt that any of them wanted any of these outcomes.

But with the club having lost in excess of £4m in the 2018/19 year, it was simply impossible for the club debt to have gone down in the way implied by the Administrators statement. The Blumarble debt hadn't evaporated into thin
air, it had been replaced by a debt owed to Ken Anderson with Anderson taking the same security that Blumarble had (plus a bit more from memory). All the details are on the Companies House website

As for Sharon and Emma's visit to FGR, I don't doubt that there would have been prior discussions  but I'd expect Sharon to prefer to use her undoubted skills on a person to person basis rather than over the phone. Vince seems to me to be extremely vain, so mix a bit of flattery with a bit of anti-Ken dust and sprinkle it over him and hey presto, job done.

Thanks Bob.

Just out of interest IF the £5m was seen by the Administrator to be an equity input into the business by its owner rather than a loan secured on assets and used to pay off BM would that explain the above?

Maybe the BM loan was never secured on any assets other than on paper and was never intended to be anything other than a 'bridging loan' type thing whilst Holdsworth brought in his 'moneyman'.

Anderson tells us that the BM was to be redeemed just 16 days from when he bought the club with Holdsworth and claimed he knew nothing about it.

If that had happened and BM was paid on time everything would have been ok.

Whilst the club was trading it wasn't an issue as such (ok it still had to be paid back and all that went with it) but as in a game of musical chairs when the music stopped and everything had to be sorted out, it would have resulted in their not being enough assets to pay all those listed as secured and the Johnny come lately to the game - BM, being the one who would have lost out?

The same scenario as played out with Ken's 'secured' loan?

That's basically what I think this has all been about, namely the plan was for Holdsworth (and/or his partner) to put £5m equity into the club, he couldn't, took out the BM loan hoping that his newest partner - KA, would, who told him he was never here to do that - and this fatal mismatch of initial expectations led to all that went on to happen with Anderson protecting himself from any personal loss.

Sorry, Sluffy, but I cannot justify the Administrator's treatment of this matter. I believe the facts were clear. The repayment of the Blumarble loan was long overdue and in order to repay it KA persuaded ED to lend him (not BWFC) the money to repay it.

That's what happened but the Administrator did not acknowledge it had happened in his Statement. It was just plain wrong imo whilst its motive appeared to be to improve EDT's position at the expense of KA.

Its getting away from the main point to dwell on the technicalities of the security but, perhaps surprisingly to many, KA always proved to be a much more reliable witness than Dean Holdsworth.

Maybe one could be forgiven for saying that wasn't a high bar but I accept what KA said about the repayment date of the loan. I also believe that KA was able to hold off Blumarble for so long because Blumarble weren't able to prove that KA had agreed to the terms of the loan and without his signature the security might not stand up in Court.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Thu Mar 12 2020, 08:05; edited 1 time in total

118When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 08:00

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@boltonbonce wrote:Bob might like to have a look at the mess developing at poor old Charlton. Talk about out of the frying pan.
I had a brief look the other day but forgive me if I don't get into this one.

119When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 12:09

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry, Sluffy, but I cannot justify the Administrator's treatment of this matter. I believe the facts were clear. The repayment of the Blumarble loan was long overdue and in order to repay it KA persuaded ED to lend him (not BWFC) the money to repay it.

That's what happened but the Administrator did not acknowledge it had happened in his Statement. It was just plain wrong imo whilst its motive appeared to be to improve EDT's position at the expense of KA.

Its getting away from the main point to dwell on the technicalities of the security but, perhaps surprisingly to many, KA always proved to be a much more reliable witness than Dean Holdsworth.

Maybe one could be forgiven for saying that wasn't a high bar but I accept what KA said about the repayment date of the loan. I also believe that KA was able to hold off Blumarble for so long because Blumarble weren't able to prove that KA had agreed to the terms of the loan and without his signature the security might not stand up in Court.

I'm getting a bit confused now?

We agree that Eddie loaned Ken (not BWFC) the money to pay off BM - so why would the Administrator for BWFC) comment on an external contract between two separate legal entities to the matter he was dealing with?

Once the money came into the club would be the time he would be concerned with it wouldn't it?

It must have been received by BWFC because Ken 'secured' assets against it - hence the documentation at Companies House - and the BM loan was settled.

The Administrator therefore as far as I'm aware could only consider this money to either have been a loan secured against assets, an unsecured loan as there were no surplus assets to be secured against or an equity injection.

The Administrator reported this "...The companies records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson as £1,578,042" (Section 10 page 17 of 39) - but goes on to say KA believed it to be circa £7.5m.  

He also didn't show BM as a creditor to BWFC thus proving that the debt had been settled - which is also shown as being settled at Companies House, under 'Charges' on the 24th September.

They also show that Anderson created his secured charge on the 27th September - three days After BM had been paid.

My reasoning of all of the above is that Rubin's took the £5m loan from Eddie to Ken being put into BWFC by Ken as money to pay off a secured creditor.

The £5m could not be secured on other assets - as there were none - and such the money was put in as an unsecured loan initially.  Once what was left from the £5m after BM was settled it was then (3 days later) filed as being secured on assets - the ones BM had just vacated due to being paid.

Without looking up the details outstanding on the BM loan, I believe it to have been somewhere around £4.6m (£4m to repay on the loan plus interest) so I conject that the payment was comprised of roughly £3.4m from the money Ken had just put in and £1.2m from the club's coffers - thus leaving the balance of £1.6m, being the amount Rubins construed Anderson actually had left to secure against the now available assets free of the BM charge - three days later.

Hence why the Administrator specifically used the phrase "balance" outstanding when referring to Andersons as a Secured Creditor, whilst he referred to both EDT and Warburton as the "amount" outstanding to them - ie it is an amount less than what was initially put in whilst the other two remained at the full amount.

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong but that's how I view what had happened.

120When tax is too taxing. - Page 4 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 13:32

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
First signs of a thaw in the Sluffy/Ten Bob love in?  Very Happy

Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

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