Wigan in Administration

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I know its not the WI and I can't say I'm all that bothered but there might be somebody interested in where you do set the bar, Sluffy.

I've always tried to think of our forum as being somewhat like being in the crowd at the match and accepting that things you hear aren't always PC or what you yourself would say but what you would probably put up with.

Stuff you hear that makes you want to go and stand/sit somewhere else or call them out for is the stuff that needs moderating on here.

Fwiw I don't have a problem with you having your views and posting them, nor others wishing you'd put a sock in them for airing them - you get stuff like that all the time on the terraces. Where I try to step in is to attempt to keep the peace between everybody - which of course I can't do to everybody's satisfaction - but hopefully enough to keep everybody just about tolerating everyone else.

That's my aim anyway.

I'm sorry if you feel you are getting got at, but I'm happy in a way you are giving it back too - if that makes sense?

I wouldn't like people leaving for not feeling comfortable on here (I nearly did myself as I said at one point) but I also think everyone has the right to say what they want within reason and hope others can be man enough to accept such without overly reacting.

Whether I achieve it though is another matter.

Hopefully I get it right more than wrong, I guess that's for others to judge.

I thought nobody is interested, Sluffy!

You may have captured the flavour of the pot but I would question some of the ingredients.

I believe Holdsworth was a man of straw and worth precious little. A house in Droitwich worth maybe £400K (possibly with a mortgage) and not much else.

Anderson had a bit of wool on his back but unlikely to be anywhere near the kind  of money needed to fund BWFC.

The first hurdle was the court and the second the EFL and its my understanding that both were told that there was £7.5m as a rescue fund. They are unlikely to have been told that £5m of this was due for repayment within days of the takeover. The issue of Mr Gordon or anyone else ready to step in is sketchy and, without evidence, I would suggest lacks credibility. 

The takeover was a transfer to two £1 companies formed by Holdsworth and Anderson respectively with no evidence of any funds being provided by either or likely to be provided by either.

As you say the £5m became £4m with punitive interest rates added if not repaid by the repayment date only a few days after it had been advanced.

I believe the other £2.5m was almost certainly Eddie Davies ready to chip in again when needed and  it was needed to keep the show on the road in 2017.

Meanwhile Anderson had a highly paid CEO, Holdsworth, with no experience of running anything of significance and Blumarble demanding their money back which he couldn't pay. He managed to hold them back on the basis that only Holdsworth had signed over the 'deeds to the ranch' and the security wasn't legally enforceable.

With quite a degree of negotiating skill, Anderson managed to hold  Blumarble off for two and a half years and got them to settle for a fraction of the interest charges they were entitled to. But that was Eddie's money too, Eddie dying only days later.

I know of no reason for anyone to criticise Blumarble though it is possible that they could have been more cautious in the first instance.

http://forbes-finance.com/exclusive-will-the-efl-let-chris-farnell-take-over-wigan-athletic/

more drama ?

Thanks, I still have a few areas that don't add up to my mind but I think we are more or less in the same ball park.

The EFL part is interesting if you refer to Iles recent article on Holdsworth interview to BBC radio where he said -

Holdsworth felt the checks done on him and his business plan – which involved a high-interest loan from finance firm BluMarble in its early stages – were adequate.

"For me personally, and the finance people we were using, they had to pass quite an extensive period of questions - the same as myself," he said.

"I felt, for me personally, the EFL had done a good job - passports and anti-money laundering - it wasn't something which you could just be blasé about. You had to give that, and they had to approve it."

And also this about Anderson -

Anderson passed the EFL’s fit and proper tests and provided the necessary proof of funding, which eventually saw the deal sanctioned by the league after several weeks.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t21519-it-seemed-fine-holdsworth-addresses-anderson-joint-takeover-in-2016

Seems to imply to me that Anderson was looking to get involved with a club - why would he have gone through the EFL process "several weeks" earlier if all he did was simply step into buying BWFC on the day at court at the very last minute?

I'm not saying his plan was to buy BWFC but isn't it a bit odd there being someone just happened to be on hand having just gone through EFL approval, when they were suddenly needed?  How many people go through EFL checks just on the off-chance and similarly why are the EFL doing checks on someone who isn't clearly closely seeking to become an owner of an EFL club shortly thereafter?

So clearly the EFL checks are on the individuals/consortium's ability to provide proof of funding and not the £1 company's that ended up owning the club.

My punt is that Davies believed Bruce Gordon was the original guarantor of Holdsworth BluMarble loan and when he pulled out Davies authorised Marland the clubs secretary to witness Holdsworth signature on the document securing the loan against the clubs assets on the actual date of the take over.  

My reasoning goes something like this (and which you kindly give me understanding enough for me to ponder on) as the loan's settlement date was just 10 days after completion of buying BWFC it seems clear that before that time BluMarble must have had agreed the loan in principle and gone through the EFL tests - that certainly couldn't be done at the last minute.  In order for BluMarble to loan the money they would have needed first security/guarantor of final settlement.

Holdsworth hadn't the money but Gordon would have.

If Gordon had recourse to withdraw his guarantor status prior to the loan being 'activated' then Holdsworth could not have been given the money and the sale would have collapsed and BWFC would have been forced into Administration (and presumably for reasons known unto Eddie not seemingly an acceptable course of action to him?).  For the deal to progress the only way it could within the timespan it had was to step up to having the club itself become the guarantor of the loan.

I have no explanation why Davies did this as clearly Holdsworth never had the security to take on the BluMarble loan in the first place.

However it would give an explanation as to why BluMarble would give a loan to Sports Shield who never had any assets in the first place and ended up securing them against BWFC - Marland (club secretary) would certainly not have acted without Eddies authority first - and no doubt in my mind the form would have been predated and signed in advance of the actual sale date.

As for who was going to put the extra £2.5m in maybe it was always going to be Eddie under the pretext of it being from Anderson but then if you think about it what was the point of the whole exercise - being that Eddie would had put £5m in for Holdsworth and the £2.5m from Anderson - he may well have just paid everything himself and keep control and ownership for a while longer wouldn't you think?

My speculation is that the plan genuinely was to attract £5m of NEW investment (and not from BWFC), that Gordon was underwriting it all and when he dropped out Eddie pressed ahead by propping up the deal - and a further £2.5m to cover trading losses per year.

Maybe even Anderson was in on the plan and happy to still go on that basis with Eddie in effect being his real partner and not Holdsworth who legally was but the wheels fell off big time when only £4m came into the club and details emerged about the loan shark interest rate Holdsworth attached to it.

Clearly at that point all trust was lost.  Holdsworth had saddled the club with a loan to his company at 24% interest for three years whilst not having the means to pay off BluMarble just 10 days after the purchase of BWFC.

Maybe the idea was for Gordon to settle the debt and charge Holdsworth the 24% interest for doing so and Holdsworth just passed it on to the club?

Whatever the plan might have been it didn't happen, Sport Shield defaulted on the loan, had a only put £4m into the club and was charging it 24% interest on £5m for the privilege!

It would also go someway as to explain why Eddie still funded the pay-off of the BluMarble debt on the club when his confidence in Ken had probably been exhausted by then?

Whichever way anyone looks at things though the setting of the BluMarble loan against BWFC assets is central to everything that followed - maybe someone had forgot than when Anderson bought the club in partnership for £1 not only did he get the debt with it but he also got £2.5m assets as well, which was 'spent' without his consent and quite frankly should not have been.

The BluMarble loan was the keystone to everything toppling down thereafter.

Would make a good story for a journalist to write about wouldn't you think!

wessy wrote:http://forbes-finance.com/exclusive-will-the-efl-let-chris-farnell-take-over-wigan-athletic/

more drama ?

Good spot Wessy!

This week, Wigan Athletic administrators have received a so called “substantial deposit” from what they call a preferred Spanish bidder for the Wigan Athletic takeover.

Whilst the administrators Begbys Traynor have reported the bidder wants to stay anonymous, we now know why as the Spanish bidders are a clever disguise and distraction for the involvement of Chris Farnell, the high profile UK sports lawyer.

Due to the lack of success Farnell has demonstrated with other clubs. Wigan fans are fearing confirmation that the worst news yet is to follow.

Farnell was previously involved in the liquidation of Northern English club, Bury, and also has a string of associations with other clubs including Charlton Athletic, who have suffered mismanagement, as well as some of football’s shadier characters.

Whilst Farnell’s past worries Wigan supporters, Farnell is well known for representing some of the world’s biggest talents including Tyson Fury, Cristiano Ronaldo as well as football managers such as Roberto Martinez.

Pulling the strings in a master plan to get around the EFL regulations, the UK laywer is working closely with said football manager, Roberto Martinez and some Spanish investors. A tactic once tried by Farnell before, when a neighbour and friend of Farnell, Manchester business man Paul Elliot, was thought to be a convenient stooge for the sale of Charlton Athletic. The plan failed. It’s clear to see Farnell still has his eyes on the prize, and is doesn’t give up easily even when EFL roadblocks are put up against him.

Whilst the EFL puts procedures in place to protect itself from sports criminals and protect the interests of football clubs, Wigan fans eagerly await to see if Farnell’s attempt to get his hands on the club will be successful.

If this takeover commences, and the Wigan fails, there will be nobody else left to blame but the EFL.

Who will be the next club to go?


It does seem like more drama to come if there's any truth in this article as I can't see it being verified from any place else?

Time will reveal all in due course no doubt!

I think we can safely say, Sluffy, that it didn't all happen on the court day. We can also say that neither Iles nor Holdsworth can be wholly relied upon as witnesses.
 
The EFL tests are essentially two fold. Owners and directors tests for the individuals
and financial tests for the business proposal. I expect that they will also have money laundering regs to comply with which will require photocopies of passports simply to confirm that the persons they are dealing with are who they say there are.
 
It remains unclear exactly how and when Anderson appeared on the scene and Iles has never dealt with it. There’s a lot Iles has never dealt with but he rarely allows an opportunity to pass without getting in one of his sly digs. However, it is clear that Inner Circle Investments (the company Anderson used) was not acquired by Anderson until 2 March 2016, just eight days before Blumarble were given security over the whole shebang.

It seems to me understandable why Holdsworth would want a finance man involved but not so understandable why they would want him.  But both Sue and Eddie must have been extremely concerned, not only at the massive haemorrhaging of money, but the toll the stress was taking on Eddie’s health. He needed to draw a line under his ownership.

It is speculative as to who knew what and when but Ken Anderson and Eddie Davies were certainly not novices and I find it a bit difficult to think that they should have been taken by surprise by Dean Holdsworth but it cost a pretty penny and took a long time to see him off. Just summat else Iles has never dealt with, though 'he knows you know'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBm9UbAYXmo

Anyway as this is the Wiggin thread, it only seems fair to compare and contrast Iles performance with the Wiggin lad.

Agree with all that Bob.

It seems to me that somethings were done at short notice and other things pre-planned suggesting the 'master plan' whatever it was, was altered at the last moment to fit the changed circumstances.

For example Holdsworth and his "finance people" who he were "using" clearly had to pass the EFL tests and were pre-planned for - Anderson passing the tests on both him and his finance also - but he clearly purchased what was to become Inner Circle Investments 'off the shelf' from a company SPW Directors Ltd that seems to provide such companies, at short notice?

Like you I can't believe Holdsworth was the brains behind everything and Davies stupid, so it's hard for me to fathom why Eddie went with him to buy the club knowing he had no money - or why the BluMarble loan was secured on BWFC assets - and I'm certain that Davies must have allowed that for a reason - the only one that I can come up with is that of being a guarantor of the loan - presumably believing that it would never come to that?

Anderson has shown himself completely astute in the ways of business and it's hard to imagine Eddie getting into bed with him knowingly unless he absolutely had to?

Seems very odd Gordon pulled out at the last minute and Ken was already there and EFL cleared (with newly bought company) to step in at a moments notice?

Eddie could easily have filed for Admin, I remember reading at the time he had even filed for it - but chose for whatever the reason to go with penniless Dean, the BluMarble loan against BWFC assets and Anderson, who presumably was relatively unknown to him at the time, coming in as a partner to Holdsworth and in your opinion not even putting the £2.5m into the club from his own money but that Eddie would provide that later?

I can't see in that scenario any point in handing over ownership for him to pay both sides of the purchase (the £5m to Holdsworth from BWFC assets leveraged and giving Ken the £2.5m to put in when needed???).  

If he's going to that AND give up control of the company to someone with no money and someone he doesn't know but with an incredibly bad history behind him then why not do that and KEEP control of the company, albeit putting it into Administration??

I don't doubt all this leading up to Eddies unexpected and premature death played a huge toll on his health.

The key to unravelling all of this is what went on with the BluMarble loan and why it became secured on BWFC assets?

Eddie MUST have allowed that to happen KNOWING Holdsworth hadn't a pot to piss in.

Was Eddie set up and played, was everything agreed by all then Holdsworth got greedy and took out of the pot for himself, was some side deal on going on where Gordon or a third party was going to settle BluMarble when it fell due and the missing million and loan shark interest rate part of that deal - which Anderson would accept once he got wind of it???

Who knows but the BluMarble loan was the iceberg that ultimately sunk Eddies good ship BWFC Titanic and frankly on the face of it, there was no apparent reason why that was allowed to happen???

Even beyond the grave though Eddies EDT saved the club and still is doing so to this day and as quite rightly keep saying very few people particular Iles wishes to recognise that and give it the credit it deserves.

At least we have our first win this season to celebrate today though!

Promotion here we come!

So here we go again despite the warnings.
BOB - WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED FFS!
Do we have to regurgitate months of speculation before we arrive back at the same point again?

wanderlust wrote:So here we go again despite the warnings.
BOB - WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED FFS!
Do we have to regurgitate months of speculation before we arrive back at the same point again?

The thing is though is that we DO KNOW what happened we just not certain in a few instances exactly WHY.

Holdsworth took out the BluMarble loan, he had a partner in Gordon who ditched him at the alter, the loan was secured on BWFC assets, the club only received £4m but had assets secured against for £5m, Holdsworth could not service the loan and was ultimately forced into liquidation, Anderson bought Holdsworth ownership shares from the Liquidator, I could go on listing facts for ages - not least that Anderson has still not been charged with anything a year after selling and having all the books gone through with a fine financial toothcomb!!!

You went all in on Anderson being a crook and it's not turned out that way and you can't admit you got it wrong.

The problem is yours not Bob's and mine, you are the one who can't accept the reality because the reality proves you wrong.

You're the one who is unable to move on with life not us!

wanderlust wrote:So here we go again despite the warnings.
BOB - WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED FFS!
Do we have to regurgitate months of speculation before we arrive back at the same point again?

Someone who aspires to remain ignorant

B_O_K_E_D

Sluffy wrote:

The thing is though is that we DO KNOW what happened we just not certain in a few instances exactly WHY.

Holdsworth took out the BluMarble loan, he had a partner in Gordon who ditched him at the alter, the loan was secured on BWFC assets, the club only received £4m but had assets secured against for £5m, Holdsworth could not service the loan and was ultimately forced into liquidation, Anderson bought Holdsworth ownership shares from the Liquidator, I could go on listing facts for ages - not least that Anderson has still not been charged with anything a year after selling and having all the books gone through with a fine financial toothcomb!!!

You went all in on Anderson being a crook and it's not turned out that way and you can't admit you got it wrong.

The problem is yours not Bob's and mine, you are the one who can't accept the reality because the reality proves you wrong.

You're the one who is unable to move on with life not us!

I'm still sceptical about Gordon being Holdsworth's partner who he ditched at the altar. If BWFC was being given away for nowt, Gordon might have looked at it but was it worth the risk at all, let alone  having Holdsworth as a partner? Not in my book and not in NoKenDo's.

Eddie was willing to give it away but not to any wannabe asset strippers. He knew that assets would need to be sold to keep the club going, but he'd also make sure that's where the money went.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I'm still sceptical about Gordon being Holdsworth's partner who he ditched at the altar. If BWFC was being given away for nowt, Gordon might have looked at it but was it worth the risk at all, let alone  having Holdsworth as a partner? Not in my book and not in NoKenDo's.

Eddie was willing to give it away but not to any wannabe asset strippers. He knew that assets would need to be sold to keep the club going, but he'd also make sure that's where the money went.

Again I agree.

It clearly was contrived to get to the point where Anderson could step in at the last minute, the question is why?  Who planned it to be so and for what reason?

I guess the reason was to give someone 'no choice' but who would that be, Davies, the EFL, the court even?

As for Davies actively selling the club to Holdsworth who had no money but manipulated things so he could use £5m worth of club assets to do so and give him and his 'partner' - who also in your view would be brining nothing to the table either in that you reckon Eddie would have put in the estimated additional running costs of £2.5m - then what is the point of doing that?

Why not hire them as employees instead if that's what he wanted - he would achieve exactly the same, with the same people and with spending the same amount of money he would be spending (and getting a loan on the assets that would be spent within the club and not stripped away someplace else), whilst not giving away control of the club and its future destiny being taken out of his hands?

Why turn the financial taps off at the club one minute and leading HMRC to take the club to court for unpaid tax bills, then in the next minute fanny about installing Holdsworth as the new owner but manipulate things so he had the money from the club to pay the bills anyway?  Eddie could have done that himself without the need for Holdsworth involvement?

And if his intention was to continue funding losses of the tune of £2.5m via a 'front man' who happened to be Anderson, then why bother, he could continue to do that himself without the need to give up half the club to someone he presumably didn't know but surely would have known his history of an eight year directors ban?

It doesn't make any sense does it?

As I say if he wanted Holdsworth and Anderson 'running' the club them have them as employees/consultants/advisors and retain control of the club for a while longer (he's funding it all in your model, whether he owns it or not - so why not continue as owner than in effect give the club away to Holdsworth who is penniless and Anderson who is a known business 'shark - and still pay out of his own pocket for both of them?)

Eddie clearly wanted to sell to Holdsworth for some reason but Holdsworth had no money.  

It seems very contrived for Gordon to step away at the last second and Anderson (who had remarkably just so happened to have passed all the EFL tests the previous day/week/month to be on hand) to step up and 'save' the day.

Something was obviously going on but I can't quite reason out what it actually was?

You can't reason it out, Sluffy, because you haven't got your thinking head on, as Judge Judy might put it.
Its hard to know where to start but I think its best if I don't for the time being. There are other ways to spend the day so lets give it another day or maybe two for you to think about what you've  just written.

Its like nine bob is a headmaster telling off a naughty schoolboy. Sluffy why do you let him speak to you like that?

Norpig wrote:Its like nine bob is a headmaster telling off a naughty schoolboy. Sluffy why do you let him speak to you like that?

I let Wanderlust call me a wanker and try to make out I'm mentally ill for the same reason - they are only words.

I'm really easy going but it if gets to the point where it becomes too much I'll tell them so.

In a way there seems to me at least that Bob and Wanderlust (although worlds apart in class to each other) do share a similarity and that is because they can't let go of the past, Bob because the lack of recognition afforded to Eddie's enormous patronage to the club and how its never been truly recognised - and he is right about this - and Wanderlust who can't accept being wrong and forever has to be locked in at that point even though time flows on.

For me at least I simply accept that life is unfair, people unreasonable and shit happens whether you live your life as a good person or a bad one.  I see it all very much as a game.  I understand that people want to make their mark, justify themselves, right perceived wrongs, think themselves smarter than the rest, be who they are - but so what, we don't actually do anything apart from pass on our genes we inherited from our ancestors to the future generations - empires come and go, values change over time, people die, life still goes on.

To me what went on between Eddie/Holdsworth/Anderson is just a little puzzle for me to play with and try to solve - it doesn't change anything, doesn't make me smart if I did happen to crack it or dumb if I didn't, it's just a little game I've chosen to play for myself - that's all.

Why should I feel the need to get upset if someone tells me I'm stupid - in a sense I am, I'm just wasting time on a conundrum that even if I solved it I have no means of actually proving it to be so nor anyone bothered that I have - nobody cares now do they?

As I say to Wanderlust, why is he so hung up on not being wrong - as only he actually gives a shit about it?  Nobody else does that's for sure.

Clearly Bob and Wanderlust are doing exactly the same that I do but they don't seem to realise that as I see it merely as a game, which I do, they see it as something important and meaningful to them to be doing, to validate themselves in someway - honouring Eddies actions and memory in one case and in the other not losing face at any cost.

Non of it really matters does it?

I can laugh at myself for doing what I do but I've achieved what I believe my reason for being has been for, I've got a lovely daughter who is happy, healthy and with my help, financially secure and hopefully she'll go on to find her nirvana in life - which may not even be the same as mine.

Maybe achieving everyone's everlasting debt of gratitude to Eddie is part of Bob's path on life to his nirvana and being seen as someone who is always right and never wrong is Wanderlust's idea of heaven - and good luck to then if they are but to me (and everyone else) they are entirely meaningless and completely unimportant  - in just the same way of me puzzling on Eddie, Dean and Ken is - but I can see it and I'm afraid they don't see it in that way, to them there is a definite importance for them in what they strive to do.

So if Bob doesn't believe I have my 'thinking' head on and Wanderlust thinks I'm an utter wanker, so what, it doesn't matter a jot to me and that's why I can take criticism/abuse easily and simply laugh at it - until it gets relentless.  At which point I'll either put a stop to it or walk away as I simply don't need to put up with it or justify myself to anyone nor the desire to seek validation from others to attain some form of recognition of who I am or what I do.

I post on here for my own interest and amusement  - don't we all?

Isn't that what it's all about?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:You can't reason it out, Sluffy, because you haven't got your thinking head on, as Judge Judy might put it.
Its hard to know where to start but I think its best if I don't for the time being. There are other ways to spend the day so lets give it another day or maybe two for you to think about what you've  just written.

Thanks Bob but without knowing anything else it's the best I can come up with if you give me two more days or two more decades.

Eddie wanted to sell the club - given his word to his family to do so maybe - but ended up giving it away and still paying for it - I'm sure he wouldn't consider that satisfactory in keeping his promise - I know I wouldn't.

Holdsworth had no money so at best he was always going to be no more than a front man for others - even if he became owner (as we all know he did) he couldn't afford to run it.  

He therefore had to have a backer to put money into keeping the club afloat until it could be turnaround and sold on.

If you reckon Eddie was going to do this via Anderson, then why not do it do it via Holdsworth instead and do away with Dean even needing a partner at all?

If selling the club means giving it free to Holdsworth as a front man and carry on paying for everything behind the scenes - then that isn't 'selling' the club, if that was what his aim was to appease his wife and kids?

If Holdsworth was the 'innocent' patsy in all of this then why charge a whopping 24% interest on a £4m loan to the club from his company when he was only paying 8% on it?

Something doesn't seem to fit right if he was only meant to be some form of a puppet?

If you know the answers then good for you.

Nothings going to change what happened but the BluMarble loan was the catalyst as to all that subsequently followed from that point onwards, even up to the current days where debts have still not been settled.

I just find it curious to know the thinking behind it all, that's all - I'll be no worse off than what I am already now if I never solve the puzzle and no richer if I ever do - so all just a bit of an intellectual game to me, if you will.

Didn't get chance to get on here last night so I have only just seen the relevant posts. A big thanks to both Norpig and Sluffy for explaining the Blumarble situation for me. Everything seems a lot clearer now and I can now see how Holdsworth, far from being a potential saviour of the club, was in fact a complete self serving twat only concerned with enriching himself at the club's expense.
TBH when he first turned up I did suspect it myself. I couldn't think of any other reason he'd turn up here. His time here wasn't particularly successful to say the least.

Hip Priest wrote:Didn't get chance to get on here last night so I have only just seen the relevant posts. A big thanks to both Norpig and Sluffy for explaining the Blumarble situation for me. Everything seems a lot clearer now and I can now see how Holdsworth, far from being a potential saviour of the club, was in fact a complete self serving twat only concerned with enriching himself at the club's expense.
TBH when he first turned up I did suspect it myself. I couldn't think of any other reason he'd turn up here. His time here wasn't particularly successful to say the least.

I wondered if you were going to come back after you'd asked the question and glad that the penny seems to have dropped with Holdsworth.

But how did you figure out that  'His time here wasn't particularly successful to say the least'? Could anything be further from the truth but it was despite Holdsworth not because of him?

The escape from freefall in 2016/17 was a minor miracle and it was down to Ken Anderson with help from Eddie in the background. It was because Anderson had the necessary skills that Eddie agreed to the stupidly named 'Sports Shield consortium' takeover at all and Holdsworth was a part of the deal I expect he'd rather have done without. But imagine the outrage if Eddie had transferred sole ownership to Ken Anderson at the time, with his background. Do you seriously think that would have been good business?

We were always going to be back in freefall if Anderson couldn't find another Sugar Daddy and Holdsworth's involvement remained an obstacle until 31 August 2018 because of the Quantuma/Blumarble deal. 

When Eddie paid off Blumarble in September 2018 he gave Anderson another six months to find Mr Moneybags knowing that the other debts couldn't be paid and that Anderson would do well if he could keep it going that long.

My jaw's still on the floor at Sluffy's notion that Eddie Davies was somehow star struck with Dean Holdsworth.

HP meant his playing career with us.

I'd say his time playing for us was likely to have been very successful for him in terms of the amount he got paid but he didn't contribute enough imo to the comparative success the club had during those years. 

On the whole Colin Todd had a good track record in the players he signed but Holdsworth was possibly his most expensive mistake.

Why, one might wonder, did Holdsworth enjoy so much popularity with the Supporters Trust and still does, it seems, with the 'esteemed' one and Auntie Beeb?