Bolton's Finances / Accounts for year ending 30th June 2021 and everything else since.

Bob, Whilst I was looking back to copy and paste the above in reply to you, I noticed you had amended one of your previous posts and I had not seen it, this is what you added...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:P.S. If you would like to know more about Directors Loan Accounts (which this was) there's loads of advice on t'internet. The DLA will be credited when a director pays money into the company or settles a company liability from other personal  resources. In this case there must have been both but the Administrators chose to ignore the c.£5million settlement of the Blumarble debt from money personally borrowed by KA from Eddie Davies.

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

I don't know these people even if it sounds like they might know me:

'Bob, being the wise and savvy director that he is, will monitor his DLA monthly to make sure that he understands how much in debit or credit he might be'.

Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Tue Sep 19, 2023 11:27 am; edited 3 times in total

I've took your advise, thank you, and look this up on 't'internet' as you suggested but decided to go to the main man for the definitive explanation, being the UK Governments, Insolvency Service.

The definition is clear and simple...

Details
A director’s loan is when you take money from your company that is not:

- a salary, dividend or expense repayment
- money you’ve previously paid into or loaned the company

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

The key phrase here being...

...when you take money FROM your company...


NOT as you state...

...or settles a company liability FROM other PERSONAL RESOURCES...


So did ED put the money into BL first, then KA withdrew it (as a DL) in order to settle BM, or not?

And I guess the other side of the equation is did ED really put £7.5m in to BL in Sept 2018, for that amount and secure it against assets?


To my logic then the time line must have been something like this

- ED loans BL £7.5m secured on assets,

- KA takes it out as DL

- KA pays off BM

- KA then puts in an additional £7.5m to BL in order to secure it on assets

If all this had happened the result would be ED with a legitimate claim for the £7.5m additional secured creditor amount and KA having a DL debit of £7.5m a claim for £7.5m secured creditor amount and £7.5m less in his personal bank account (which one assumes would be the money he loaned from ED - but that of course can't have been the same £7.5m loaned to BL as that had been used to pay off BM).

In this case both ED and KA's claims would stand for the additional £7.5m security they claimed, ED would also be owed £7.5m from KA for the loan to him.

KA would have a £7.5m debit as a DL, a £7.5m secured creditor amount and a personal debt of £7.5m to ED.

This I believe to be your position on all of this?

If so then

- ED would have paid out £15m and be a creditor to both BL and KA

- KA would be a debtor of £7.5m to BL's Directors Loan account, a secured creditor for £7.5m (which would balance off his DL) and a debtor of £7.5m to ED

- BM would have been settled.



Unless KA put £15m into the pot in reality, then all this simply didn't happen -  it was simply a paper trail.

That's my position on all this - and I suggest it is the Administrators too and why he threw it all out.

I suspect that you are sending yourself and everyone else dizzy but if you insist on going round in ever decreasing circles, Sluffy, you might use your time more wisely by watching a few episodes of Ever Decreasing Circles. Here's your starter for ten.

I don't care about anyone else Bob, I'm one of those who tries always to play by the book and do the right things.

I can't help myself for some reason, I'd certainly be a whole lot richer if I turned a blind eye to one or two things in the past - but I wouldn't be happy in myself if I had, it would eat away at me,

I don't care what happened four years ago, the case is closed, everybody has long since ruled a line under it and moved on.

Well everyone bar you that is.

I've no idea why you can't let it go, even if you are right in everything you say - but clearly you can't, something in all this is personal to you.

I think I've finally understood your position on this as I've outlined above but an Insolvency expert, working to insolvency laws, as a representative of an insolvency court had to do his job, and clearly what was 'constructed' and attempted to be passed off as what happened by EDT and KA clearly never happened at all.

I believe you know that too.

It might well be a clever bit of accountancy designed to protect ED and KA but it NEVER really happened, it was simply some make believe paper trail.

(And that is why it took me so long to crack your puzzle - the answer was a 'make believe' one and one that simply never physically happened!).

It wasn't done to defraud anyone but designed to protect them both from possible financial loss.

If BL had managed to stagger on for one year and a day after the date KA filed his claim for security, the Administrator would have had to accept the claims as he'd no power in law to strike them out - but BL fell into Admin before the year and a day and the Administrator had no choice other to do his job - and he did.

It was always impossible for ED to loan KA £7.5m and secure it on BL (as he was no longer either a shareholder or Director of BL at the time) unless he loaned the money directly to BL and not KA.

KA could have taken the loan from ED, put it into BL, secured it, then withdrew it as a DL and paid off BM but the timeline (and no doubt the bank statements) shows that simply didn't happen - BM was settled BEFORE the date that KA created his charge on BL - AND BL could have simply settled BM direct and KA have had no need of a DL.

Unless ED loaned £15m (£7.5M to BL to settle BM and secure his loan on assets, and £7.5m to KA - (to also settle BM???) in order that he could secure his loan too) it simply could not have happened - and although I've no proof to show it didn't I highly suspect nothing of the sort really took place.

What's more likely did happen was that ED created a contract loaning KA £7.5m against ownership of ICI (which owned the shares in BL).  That the money was paid directly to BM (and possibly?) the remaining circa £2.5m was forwarded to KA.

Maybe KA paid off another loan or something (maybe even a personal one?) and put the remainder into BL and that was why circa £1.5m of his claimed secured creditor status was allowed.

ED obviously knew there was no value in the BL share ownership so protected his £7.5m against BL.  Similarly KA probably knew he was never going to be in a position to pay ED £7.50m (plus interest?) back so protected himself in the same way by claiming secured creditor status against BL.

Probably what should have been done was for ED to simply loan the money to BL and secure it against assets, then for BL to settle with BM.

Clearly that wasn't done and I can only speculate that ED had by that time lost trust in KA and did what he did to ensure BM was paid and that on paper at least he had a claim for that amount as and when BL was sold.

As we know ED died and BL fell into Admin before the year and a day rule was able to come into effect.

And that is why the Administrator correctly did what he did.

...and why EDT and KA had no choice but to accept it because the events they claimed never happened - BL's bank statements prove they hadn't.

Deary me, Sluffy, you are still flummoxed, still flailing, still flannelling and still floundering like a flatfish on a foreshore and I'm seriously running out of my stock of alliteration.

I think you need a break, old bean. Don't you think Howard and Hilda were rather good in Ever Decreasing Circles? Who was your favourite? I always liked Penelope Wilton but I never told Lady Bobsworth.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Deary me, Sluffy, you are still flummoxed, still flailing, still flannelling and still floundering like a flatfish on a foreshore and I'm seriously running out of my stock of alliteration.

I think you need a break, old bean. Don't you think Howard and Hilda were rather good in Ever Decreasing Circles? Who was your favourite? I always liked Penelope Wilton but I never told Lady Bobsworth.

Bob,

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

I'm pretty sure I've cracked the puzzle YOU set me.

It's beginning to look to me that you seem to be somewhat of a poor loser, I hope I'm wrong about that.

I'm pretty sure you thought you knew what had happened but maybe you never thought deeply enough to consider and realise that you had perhaps somehow mislead yourself, maybe?

You seemed to come up with some scarcely believable explanations to some of my musings and I don't believe some of these explanations stood up well to scrutiny.

On what basis did ED secure a claimed security of £7.5m in Sept 2018?

If BM was settled in Sept 2018, where did KA have a further £7.5m from to make his claim the following month (Oct 2018)?

Let me quote you on what you've explained to me previously...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Back from hols with batteries partly re-charged, Sluffy, so let's try again. It may help understanding if I ask if you have ever purchased a property with the aid of a mortgage? If so did the mortgage advance go through your bank account and show up on your bank statements?

What if you re-mortgaged? Would the new funds and repayment of the old mortgage show up on your bank statements?

Not very likely, is it? The transactions, loan agreements and security for the loans would normally all be dealt with by the respective solicitors. The same goes for companies re-mortgaging. 

When Eddie Davies agreed (reluctantly I expect) to advance money to repay BluMarble the transactions were not likely to show on Ken Anderson's bank statements nor those of Bolton Wanderers or Burnden Leisure. That does not mean that the transactions never took place. Neither does it mean that the Administrator was entitled to ignore them.

So Anderson never saw the money nor did BL

Paid via solicitors to BM.

So then how did ED secure his £7.5m on BL - he wasn't a Director or a shareholder?

Let's for argument sake take it that KA with his BL hat on authorised it in some sort of legal quid pro quo for paying off BM - if so where did KA get the £7.5m for him to secure his £7.5m on BL as well?

He didn't get it from BL, the contract consideration between he and ED was that ED settled with BM and in return had his loan secured against BL (on the assumption we've just made above) - so where did this other amount come from?

It couldn't be that he settled BM himself then claimed this as a DL - BM had already been settled by ED.

How can both ED AND KA place a claim for security on BL for settling BM, when BM can only be settled in full once?

They can't.

(Unless £15m was loaned by ED?)

Something is not right here.

You're no fool you certainly must have known that, so why claim ED and KA had legitimate security for £7.5m each and it is the Administrator who was wrong???

What's your game Bob - to run me ragged or something, to poke fun of me perhaps, maybe you thought I wasn't up to the challenge, a fair thought considering how little I knew on the subject?

I took on your puzzle in good faith, I've given an honest answer - which might not be the right one but it does throw serious doubts on your stated views of things.

If you followed the money it doesn't lead you to the same place the paper trail wants you to go.

ED could easily have loaned BL the £7.5m, secured it against assets, then BL could then simply pay off BM and everything would have been simple and above board - clearly that didn't happen and there must have been a reason why.

All else follows from there.

I don't know what to do with you, Sluffy. You're all over the place.

I've tried being patient and explaining everything to you but nothing gets through.

I've recommended Ever Decreasing Circles to help you see how daft you are being.

I previously recommended a Judge Judy course to help you learn a bit about how to recognise bullshit. 

But nothing, nothing, nothing ever seems to work.

Anyway I'm waiting to see if the penny has dropped with Boncey. He hasn't answered yet but if you missed it here it is again.

Its quite simple Boncey. Eddie lent Ken £5m to repay Blumarble. 

The Admins said, 'so what, if the bookkeeper didn't record it in the books we can pretend it never happened'.

Sluffy proved he's a prize nitwit by agreeing with them.

Have you got it now?


Thought not

It’s like hitting your head against a brick wall, isn’t it Bob

karlypants wrote:It’s like hitting your head against a brick wall, isn’t it Bob

I simply have the courage of my convictions, that's all.

Have the courage of one's convictions
phrase

Act on one's beliefs despite danger or disapproval.


I don't stick my neck out unless I'm confident of what I'm saying.

I stood alone on here when I told you Anderson was running an insolvent business within the letter of the law (just about!) and wasn't raping and pillaging it.  

I stood alone when I told you that PPE contracts were awarded honestly and there was no corruption or cronyism involved.

I stood alone when I told you all Wanderlust was an habitual liar.

Now I'm again on my own by saying that the Administrator was right to strike out the £7.5m claims for secured creditor status of ED and KA of Sept/Oct 2018.

Bob may well know all there is to know about accountancy but he clearly has a bit of a blind spot on how Insolvency Law effects what is claimed to be in the books when the company is placed into Administration.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I don't know what to do with you, Sluffy. You're all over the place.

I've tried being patient and explaining everything to you but nothing gets through.

I've recommended Ever Decreasing Circles to help you see how daft you are being.

I previously recommended a Judge Judy course to help you learn a bit about how to recognise bullshit. 

But nothing, nothing, nothing ever seems to work.

Anyway I'm waiting to see if the penny has dropped with Boncey. He hasn't answered yet but if you missed it here it is again.

Its quite simple Boncey. Eddie lent Ken £5m to repay Blumarble. 

The Admins said, 'so what, if the bookkeeper didn't record it in the books we can pretend it never happened'.

Sluffy proved he's a prize nitwit by agreeing with them.

Have you got it now?


Thought not

Bob, your premise is that KA borrowed the money off ED, paid off the BM loan and in doing so created a 'de facto' Directors Loan for that amount.

However Insolvency Law, which is Commercial law and is judged 'de jure' (or in other words what is actually noted in the legal code - the statute - the law itself).

In simple terms the Act states for it to be a Directors Loan, the Director has to either put the money into, or take it out from the company - in other words it has to originate through the company.

It didn't.

THE END.




De jure, (Latin: “from the law”) legal concept that refers to what happens according to the law, in contrast to de facto (Latin: “from the fact”), which is used to refer to what happens in practice or in reality. For example, a de jure leader has the legal right to authority over a jurisdiction, but a de facto leader is someone who exerts authority without holding the legal right to do so. The term de jure is often used in legal matters to distinguish legal standard from de facto practice.

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

Daily Sluff Headlines.

Sluffy says that accountants don't know what they are doing on DLAs


Accountants all over the country will be heading for their desks today shaken by the news that they might have been getting Directors Loan Accounts wrong throughout their entire careers.


This revelation follows on from news in the Daily Sluff that commercial lawyers don't know what they are doing either.


Those that think Sluffy is of sound mind and on to something might well be checking out their professional indemnity policies before morning coffee.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I don't know what to do with you, Sluffy. You're all over the place.

I've tried being patient and explaining everything to you but nothing gets through.

I've recommended Ever Decreasing Circles to help you see how daft you are being.

I previously recommended a Judge Judy course to help you learn a bit about how to recognise bullshit. 

But nothing, nothing, nothing ever seems to work.

Anyway I'm waiting to see if the penny has dropped with Boncey. He hasn't answered yet but if you missed it here it is again.

Its quite simple Boncey. Eddie lent Ken £5m to repay Blumarble. 

The Admins said, 'so what, if the bookkeeper didn't record it in the books we can pretend it never happened'.

Sluffy proved he's a prize nitwit by agreeing with them.

Have you got it now?


Thought not

Don't get me involved. 

What are you on about, Boncey?

It was you that said (Post 461)

''All this talk and we still don't know what went on!?
Dear dear."

So I explained to you how simple it was. It was dead simple apart from the Admins trying to pretend that there was summat uncertain when it wasn't uncertain at all and using it to ignore Ken Anderson's rights.

Sluffy's turned it into War and Peace

Ten Bobsworth wrote:What are you on about, Boncey?

It was you that said (Post 461)

''All this talk and we still don't know what went on!?
Dear dear."

So I explained to you how simple it was. It was dead simple apart from the Admins trying to pretend that there was summat uncertain when it wasn't uncertain at all and using it to ignore Ken Anderson's rights.

Bob, Bob, I know. It's just that I'm tired of it now.
Have you ever seen a chimp with a stick?
It can run about waving it with aggression, or, on other occasions, with the pure joy of just having a stick.
Sadly, I'm now reduced to saying, "look, there's a chimp with a stick".

boltonbonce wrote:
Bob, Bob, I know. It's just that I'm tired of it now.
Have you ever seen a chimp with a stick?
It can run about waving it with aggression, or, on other occasions, with the pure joy of just having a stick.
Sadly, I'm now reduced to saying, "look, there's a chimp with a stick".

Tired of it? I've given you DI Grimm, Howard, Hilda and the lovely Penelope Wilton. What more do you want?

That tickled me you two stop it!

karlypants wrote:That tickled me you two stop it!

Until he admits that Betty Boop is sexier than Olive Oyl, I can see no future for the poor chap.

boltonbonce wrote:
Until he admits that Betty Boop is sexier than Olive Oyl, I can see no future for the poor chap.

Betty Boop, Olive Oyl or Penelope Wilton. Lets have a heated debate.

Olive has no chance, but I've always had a crush on Penny. I'll have to think about it.