Ken Anderson - Old Owner (Definitely. For Ever ..... )

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I think this sorry mess will end up in court. I believe Deano has always had the interests of the club at heart but lacks the resources and maybe nous. Ken I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him.

We started the season with funding in place to see us through to the end of the season if we believe the EFL following their criteria to sanction the sale. We also sold Holding which should have boosted the coffers by 1-2m up front with future possible payments. Since then we've had late payments and lack of cash to pay bills and players. Even allowing for a few things being uncovered after sale, I don't believe for 1 second that the Blu Marble, Macron and other major contracts weren't seen in due diligence and included in the forecasting submitted to the EFL.

Something not right to me.

Blumarble wasn't seen in DD. It was executed on the same day as the takeover... 10 March, Club Sold --> 10 March - Blumarble Charge Signed. So it's more about whether Ken and Deano did any sort of DD on each other, to check for crabs before jumping in the pit.

Can't see Ken going into it blindly, doesn't seem the type.

[Worthy4England]

I think this sorry mess will end up in court. I believe Deano has always had the interests of the club at heart but lacks the resources and maybe nous. Ken I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him.

We started the season with funding in place to see us through to the end of the season if we believe the EFL following their criteria to sanction the sale. We also sold Holding which should have boosted the coffers by 1-2m up front with future possible payments. Since then we've had late payments and lack of cash to pay bills and players. Even allowing for a few things being uncovered after sale, I don't believe for 1 second that the Blu Marble, Macron and other major contracts weren't seen in due diligence and included in the forecasting submitted to the EFL.

Something not right to me.

Blumarble wasn't seen in DD. It was executed on the same day as the takeover... 10 March, Club Sold --> 10 March - Blumarble Charge Signed. So it's more about whether Ken and Deano did any sort of DD on each other, to check for crabs before jumping in the pit.

Can't see Ken going into it blindly, doesn't seem the type.

Unless he thought his ass was covered in any event, of course....

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Unless he thought his ass was covered in any event, of course....

True enough, though if Blu marble have any hold over assets then I would have thought some interest in the agreement would be forthcoming.

[Aanvalluh]

Way To Make Money.

Sell the script of two club owners at each others throats. Need two actors to play Anderson and Holdsworth (Holdsworth is looking more like Johnny Vegas every day http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38917586" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and someone to provide the running commentary. Would probably have to be placed under "horror" so anyone under 18 can be protected.

Apart from that, what's the worst that can happen after everything that's gone before??

[Worthy4England]

Unless he thought his ass was covered in any event, of course....

True enough, though if Blu marble have any hold over assets then I would have thought some interest in the agreement would be forthcoming.

They do. But not sure which or what the pecking order is, between all the floating chargeholders. There's generally a Deed of Priority or somesuch, but that's not available to see

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Unless he thought his ass was covered in any event, of course....

True enough, though if Blu marble have any hold over assets then I would have thought some interest in the agreement would be forthcoming.

They do. But not sure which or what the pecking order is, between all the floating chargeholders. There's generally a Deed of Priority or somesuch, but that's not available to see

I can see Deano coming out of it worse off.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

it's more about whether Ken and Deano did any sort of DD on each other, to check for crabs before jumping in the pit.

Can't see Ken going into it blindly, doesn't seem the type.

Unless he thought his ass was covered in any event, of course....

Or there just wasn't any time to check. Let's not forget we were hours from administration when Deano's original funding plan fell through and he cast desperately about for a partner. Although he may have been sniffing around beforehand, Ken can't have had the time (and access) to make sure he wasn't jumping into a money pit.

That much I can surmise from what we know. As always in warfare, it seems people are dying to take sides; from where I sit, with my feet under a London desk but my heart peeping nervously at Lancashire, here's my opinion, somewhat lacking in knowledge, but full of concern. So, to repeat, these are my opinions.

Eddie Davies: Persuaded to overspeculate, he took his eye off the ball – then took his ball home. That said, it wasn’t his job to check the finances, just sign the cheques. A fan, for sure, and very happy to put money into the club; it’s also worth noting how much debt he wrote off. The £5m orwhateveritis that we owe him is contingent upon re-reaching the upper levels, and strikes me as a very generous amount to pay back.

Phil Gartside: I liked him as a man and admired him as a chairman, but I can’t help feel saddened by the legacy. Not everything can be blamed on managers, who will spend as much as they’re given the ask for more, and some of the mess appears to have been far away from the pitch. I don’t think he was evil, I think he genuinely wanted the best for the club, but on his watch the club appears to have made some questionable financial decisions.

Dean Holdsworth: I don’t doubt that he had/has the club’s best interests at heart. He obviously fancied being heavily involved as a celebrity chairman, a player-recruitment adviser and, I suspect, a saviour. But he hasn’t got the money, so he seems in his desperation to have taken out a punitive loan, and turned for a business partner to the only guy who wanted to take the risk. Elbowed aside since, he seems to have no power but a massive responsibility: his company borrowed against club assets – not enormously unusual, but not enormously safe either, and a situation from which many other clubs have struggled long and hard to recover.

Ken Anderson: Despite raising his communication level, arguably the one we know least. He didn’t have to put his skin in the game on that vital day in early 2016. He almost certainly wasn’t acting out of altruistic good intent – a club with potential was available for investment below market rate – but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing: helming us to a promotion-aided resale is far from the worst outcome, then or now. Whether or not he planned from the outset to sideline Deano, I think he is genuinely shocked by some of the inherited financial clusterf*ckery. I applaud that he is trying to renegotiate deals – his hucksterish background as an agent probably helps – but the problem is, not everybody is persuadable and from the sounds of it, BluMarble don’t seem keen to change the terms in our favour and therefore their disadvantage.

What I don’t like is that Ken is using his bully pulpit to settle scores and, as of this week, deflect criticism (“Zach’s sale was Deano’s fault”). That’s not a good look, for a leader or those he leads; Deano’s “yeah but you were banned as a director” is a sad indication of the way things are going. I don’t know where it leads, but it might not be quick, it might not be pretty, and with the old accounts info about to come out of Companies House, it might get a lot louder before it quietens down.

[jonnycooper]

I blame Eddie Davies!!

[Worthy4England]

it's more about whether Ken and Deano did any sort of DD on each other, to check for crabs before jumping in the pit.

Can't see Ken going into it blindly, doesn't seem the type.

Unless he thought his ass was covered in any event, of course....

Or there just wasn't any time to check. Let's not forget we were hours from administration when Deano's original funding plan fell through and he cast desperately about for a partner. Although he may have been sniffing around beforehand, Ken can't have had the time (and access) to make sure he wasn't jumping into a money pit.

That much I can surmise from what we know. As always in warfare, it seems people are dying to take sides; from where I sit, with my feet under a London desk but my heart peeping nervously at Lancashire, here's my opinion, somewhat lacking in knowledge, but full of concern. So, to repeat, these are my opinions.

Eddie Davies: Persuaded to overspeculate, he took his eye off the ball – then took his ball home. That said, it wasn’t his job to check the finances, just sign the cheques. A fan, for sure, and very happy to put money into the club; it’s also worth noting how much debt he wrote off. The £5m orwhateveritis that we owe him is contingent upon re-reaching the upper levels, and strikes me as a very generous amount to pay back.

Phil Gartside: I liked him as a man and admired him as a chairman, but I can’t help feel saddened by the legacy. Not everything can be blamed on managers, who will spend as much as they’re given the ask for more, and some of the mess appears to have been far away from the pitch. I don’t think he was evil, I think he genuinely wanted the best for the club, but on his watch the club appears to have made some questionable financial decisions.

Dean Holdsworth: I don’t doubt that he had/has the club’s best interests at heart. He obviously fancied being heavily involved as a celebrity chairman, a player-recruitment adviser and, I suspect, a saviour. But he hasn’t got the money, so he seems in his desperation to have taken out a punitive loan, and turned for a business partner to the only guy who wanted to take the risk. Elbowed aside since, he seems to have no power but a massive responsibility: his company borrowed against club assets – not enormously unusual, but not enormously safe either, and a situation from which many other clubs have struggled long and hard to recover.

Ken Anderson: Despite raising his communication level, arguably the one we know least. He didn’t have to put his skin in the game on that vital day in early 2016. He almost certainly wasn’t acting out of altruistic good intent – a club with potential was available for investment below market rate – but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing: helming us to a promotion-aided resale is far from the worst outcome, then or now. Whether or not he planned from the outset to sideline Deano, I think he is genuinely shocked by some of the inherited financial clusterf*ckery. I applaud that he is trying to renegotiate deals – his hucksterish background as an agent probably helps – but the problem is, not everybody is persuadable and from the sounds of it, BluMarble don’t seem keen to change the terms in our favour and therefore their disadvantage.

What I don’t like is that Ken is using his bully pulpit to settle scores and, as of this week, deflect criticism (“Zach’s sale was Deano’s fault”). That’s not a good look, for a leader or those he leads; Deano’s “yeah but you were banned as a director” is a sad indication of the way things are going. I don’t know where it leads, but it might not be quick, it might not be pretty, and with the old accounts info about to come out of Companies House, it might get a lot louder before it quietens down.

Reasonable summation DSB, with a couple of additions.

We clearly aren't going to get both sides of the ED/PG story for very sad reasons. The bottom line for me, is legally PG was the Chief Exec and his responsibilities included keeping the club solvent. If he was expecting cash from ED then it's reasonable if that cash didn't materialise that ED also played a part. If ED had made clear there was no further cash in a manner that should have given time to PG to resolve the situation then for me it's down to PG. As I say apart from opinions, I doubt we'll ever know the truth of that matter.

On KA, we do "know" what was reported in the press in relation to his dealings at Southampton and briefly Liverpool - we don't of course know the validity - but it was reported at the time and since that he was struck-off for diverting funds (using Corporate money as his own), VAT discrepancies and failing to co-operate with the receivers. So he's been about a bit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BWFC_Insane]

http://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/article/2016 ... 65846.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not read it all yet.

Accounts in there too.

W4E - get on it!

[General Mannerheim]

kin ell

[Worthy4England]

Errrr - I think Dean and Ken might have fallen out a bit.

[plymouth wanderer]

Actions speak a thousand words. Despite all the crap surrounding Ken's past. So far, he's been brilliant.Dean of on the other hand is a cvnt

[Worthy4England]

The major problems/highlights from first reading are:

That the Auditors can't confirm the going concern basis (regardless of what the EFL might say).

The Board are disputing "rights" signed off in regard to the Blumarble loan and reference £1m in expenses that have gone somewhere (on more than one occasion) - they're saying that there was some sort of side letter (separate agreement) and that Burnden Leisure are not responsible for it. The contention that it was signed only by DH appears to be incorrect against the charge that is showing on Companies House. unless they're contending that Massey didn't sign or didn't know what he was signing up to. This loan allegedly is already past due (at least in part) and our initial assertion that it was of quickquid proportions seem to be largely on the nail.

In terms of ED, he did sell for a quid and wrote off all his loan less £15m which is performance dependent, which was what was reported at the time. He also looks to have waived a further £9.4m in back interest credit. The ED thing looks to be a minor if not totally negligible issue in the scheme of things.

Anderson stumped up £3.5m which he's got back at zero interest (no detail that I could see, on whether there were any significant "administration fees" though)

There is a realistic chance that Blumarble could try and go for a winding up petition.

[Worthy4England]

Oh Dean and Ken can't even seem to agree who owns what percentage of the Club....

[TANGODANCER]

How nice for the club's reputation if only they could have done all this behind closed doors like gentleman.

[BWFC_Insane]

The major problems/highlights from first reading are:

That the Auditors can't confirm the going concern basis (regardless of what the EFL might say).

The Board are disputing "rights" signed off in regard to the Blumarble loan and reference £1m in expenses that have gone somewhere (on more than one occasion) - they're saying that there was some sort of side letter (separate agreement) and that Burnden Leisure are not responsible for it. The contention that it was signed only by DH appears to be incorrect against the charge that is showing on Companies House. unless they're contending that Massey didn't sign or didn't know what he was signing up to. This loan allegedly is already past due (at least in part) and our initial assertion that it was of quickquid proportions seem to be largely on the nail.

In terms of ED, he did sell for a quid and wrote off all his loan less £15m which is performance dependent, which was what was reported at the time. He also looks to have waived a further £9.4m in back interest credit. The ED thing looks to be a minor if not totally negligible issue in the scheme of things.

Anderson stumped up £3.5m which he's got back at zero interest (no detail that I could see, on whether there were any significant "administration fees" though)

There is a realistic chance that Blumarble could try and go for a winding up petition.

Dean failed to tell us that the loan he had obtained from BluMarble to Sports Shield on or about the 10th March 2016, was repayable (as I now understand and believe) on the 26th March 2016, only 16 days later, but subsequently changed, I now understand and believe to the 24th April 2016, at an interest rate of 30% per annum. This has also been referred to in the notes to the accounts filed by Deloitte, earlier this week.

Dean also failed to tell us at the time, about a subsequent side letter he/Sports Shield had signed with BluMarble. As it currently stands, Sports Shield have failed to repay the BluMarble loan and are therefore, technically, as I understand it, in default and the club may be called upon in respect of the guarantees Dean/Sports Shield provided. I am disputing the validity and legality of these guarantees. This has been also referred to in the notes to the accounts, filed by Deloitte.

I find it very interesting that Dean should comment about 'prior approval of the board issues', as he personally and solely signed the loan agreement, on behalf of his company Sports Shield and also as a director, on behalf of the club (i.e. he signed solely, on behalf of both parties) without my prior authorisation, or knowledge of the agreement, with no board meeting having ever taken place, or anything being minuted.

Is what Ken says. Apart from the fact Massey appeared to have signed the rest does sound likely given what is in the accounts.

[Worthy4England]

The major problems/highlights from first reading are:

That the Auditors can't confirm the going concern basis (regardless of what the EFL might say).

The Board are disputing "rights" signed off in regard to the Blumarble loan and reference £1m in expenses that have gone somewhere (on more than one occasion) - they're saying that there was some sort of side letter (separate agreement) and that Burnden Leisure are not responsible for it. The contention that it was signed only by DH appears to be incorrect against the charge that is showing on Companies House. unless they're contending that Massey didn't sign or didn't know what he was signing up to. This loan allegedly is already past due (at least in part) and our initial assertion that it was of quickquid proportions seem to be largely on the nail.

In terms of ED, he did sell for a quid and wrote off all his loan less £15m which is performance dependent, which was what was reported at the time. He also looks to have waived a further £9.4m in back interest credit. The ED thing looks to be a minor if not totally negligible issue in the scheme of things.

Anderson stumped up £3.5m which he's got back at zero interest (no detail that I could see, on whether there were any significant "administration fees" though)

There is a realistic chance that Blumarble could try and go for a winding up petition.

Dean failed to tell us that the loan he had obtained from BluMarble to Sports Shield on or about the 10th March 2016, was repayable (as I now understand and believe) on the 26th March 2016, only 16 days later, but subsequently changed, I now understand and believe to the 24th April 2016, at an interest rate of 30% per annum. This has also been referred to in the notes to the accounts filed by Deloitte, earlier this week.

Dean also failed to tell us at the time, about a subsequent side letter he/Sports Shield had signed with BluMarble. As it currently stands, Sports Shield have failed to repay the BluMarble loan and are therefore, technically, as I understand it, in default and the club may be called upon in respect of the guarantees Dean/Sports Shield provided. I am disputing the validity and legality of these guarantees. This has been also referred to in the notes to the accounts, filed by Deloitte.

I find it very interesting that Dean should comment about 'prior approval of the board issues', as he personally and solely signed the loan agreement, on behalf of his company Sports Shield and also as a director, on behalf of the club (i.e. he signed solely, on behalf of both parties) without my prior authorisation, or knowledge of the agreement, with no board meeting having ever taken place, or anything being minuted.

Is what Ken says. Apart from the fact Massey appeared to have signed the rest does sound likely given what is in the accounts.

I'd add a "proviso" that the auditors seem to be broadly saying there's a lot they don't know - including whether "appropriate accounting records have been kept" and that they've "not obtained all of the information and explanations they deemed necessary"

That said, Deano's signed the things too - I assume after having read them.

[Worthy4England]

It's also interesting that the Sports Shield website on which Deano's refutation of KA's billet doux yesterday offers bridging refinancing...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

KA: "As regards, Dean's comments about the delays in completing the audit and filing of the accounts, I am happy to say that he is mainly to blame for this."

Grow up, the pair of you.