Administration and recovery

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Just as a random question: Just how much would the club and grounds raise as real estate to property developers if, by some strange unthinkable coincidence, it all folded into non-existence? Since everybody connected with the sale etc, every single person of them, are entrepreneurs and not football lovers and all fighting over Pound signs whilst we as a club have only a Sunday League side left for the purpose of football. We could of course, possibly field a team of hedge fund managers and accountants who once studied sports science economics at university, but that's going beyond the pale.....I think....anyway, back to the question.....What is the attraction in owning Bolton Wanderers ?

About £6 million for the real estate, all of it. About £half a million for the 'golden share'.

Can you explain why the golden share has any value at all in a liquidation?

It hasn't. I was merely answering Tango's question and putting an approximate value on Bolton Wanderers. ( Yes, I know he asked "if it all folded into non-existence", but he also concluded with "what is the attraction in owning Bolton Wanderers".)
If you dispute my estimates then give Tango your own answer, I'm not claiming infallibility, just replying to a post.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Remember when Bassini asked the EFL for 48 hours to prove he had the funds to run the club? Remember when he didn't do it?

As for the 'written agreement' from Anderson, see the first part of this post. He signed a heads of agreement as we've found out with FV that means nothing until you can prove you have the funds

He actually signed a Sales & Purchase Agreement with Anderson.
And the nonsense with the EFL is pretty much the same nonsense Dale is going through with Bury right now...
There is a very enlightened series of tweets by somebody called Hezxze which shows the full history of Bassini and his attempt to buy us. It's worth a read. I'll and post a link, if I can...

Anyway, here is the BASSINI TIMELINE. (courtesy of Hezzle) (sorry I couldn't embed the links, but I've left them in so you can look them up yourself if interested. It also helps Bruce to overcome the Twitter ban - as if being banned from pubs isn't enough).


Hezzle
@AlexHezzle
A short timeline of the Bassini’s #bwfc bids and threatened legal action (no doubt with bits missing) – relying heavily on the great reporting of
@MarcIles

There’s no doubt the risk of some kind of potential legal challenge was on the cards, and in fairness to Bassini he’s been talking about it for a while now. However, as we’ve come to expect, what he says and does do not always appear consistent.

2nd May – KA falls out with LB and the bid to buy the club from KA pre-admin is over – thus opening the door to admin / winding-up at court 6 days later.

Wanderers say no-go to Laurence Bassini takeover bid
theboltonnews.co.uk

3rd May – Confusion all round as Bassini tells TalkSport the deal isn’t off and he has a ‘Watertight Contract’ to buy the Club -

Bolton Wanderers latest: Another twist in takeover saga as Laurence Bassini claims he has ‘taken...
talksport.com

3rd May – Bassini goes on to tell TalkSport that he has served a ‘specific performance’ notice on Ken Anderson demanding he gives up his share certificates for the Club.

Laurence Bassini EXCLUSIVE: Businessman insists Bolton takeover is STILL ON and brands Ken Anderson...
talksport.com

FYI Specific Performance is essentially a type of order issued by a court that compels a party to a contract to perform one or more of its contractual obligations. In these circumstances, the order would compel KA to sell the club to LB as per their supposed ‘watertight contract’

When LB says ‘serve a specific performance notice’ I would interpret that to mean his solicitors are threatening KA that they will go to court to compel him to honour the contract rather than actually serving the notice at court.

4th May – Bassini continues to claim that he’s in control of the Club and states that he will attend the Nottingham Forest game.

Wanderers stuck in ownership limbo over bank holiday weekend
theboltonnews.co.uk

13th May – ED Trust officially puts Bolton into administration. David Rubins & Partners appointed.

15th May – KA appoints Quantuma as administrators for the Hotel.

15th May – Bassini tells SkySports he will be contacting the Administrators to put in a bid to buy the club.

Laurence Bassini to return with new Bolton Wanderers offer
skysports.com

Seemingly strange behaviour for someone who less than 10 days earlier was claiming to have a ‘watertight’ agreement and to be in control of the club. Perhaps just a belt and braces approach from him to hedge his bets whilst getting his legal ducks in a row?

20th May – BEN reports that Bassini claims his lawyers submitted a bid to Administrators on 17th May.


Administration: What we know so far at Wanderers
theboltonnews.co.uk

5th June – Bassini threatening to bring legal challenge against Ken Anderson for beaching their agreement. Allegedly notice of this was sent to the Hotel admins (Quantuma).


Bassini vows to mount legal challenge at Wanderers
theboltonnews.co.uk

Quantuma dismiss this in a short statement. BEN reports that this potential legal challenge was part of the reason why two admins were appointed.

This is where LB starts to ramp up the legal warnings and keep referring back to that agreement with KA which he believes entitles him to the club.

12th June – BEN reporting that Bassini still in the mix to buy the Club as final bid deadline due that day.

Bassini still in the mix to buy Bolton Wanderers
theboltonnews.co.uk

Despite the legal rhetoric LB is still an active party bidding as part of the administrators process. Although we learn that FV are the only bidder to pay the £25k fee to see the club’s accounts.

30th June – BEN reports that FV signed Heads of Terms with Club’s Administrators - Bassini claims he will seek a High Court injunction against the administrators to stop the sale of the club.

12 July – Bassini criticises Administrators for not choosing his bid. Reveals David Sullivan as £25m backer. Administrators pushback that bid was not as good as FV and no proof of funds.

Laurence Bassini talkSPORT interview: Bolton administrators react with ‘dismay’ and claim he’s...

23rd July – BEN reports Bassini meets fans outside the stadium and saying “I have been told today that we are going to serve a specific performance to get this deal done”

Bassini plans legal action in address to Wanderers fans
theboltonnews.co.uk

He went on to say - “My solicitors talked about an injunction, but I am not going to have it, even though there is a threat of it, because I don’t want to be the cause of this club if it goes down, for it to have an excuse.”

LB strangely backtracking re injunction idea but also pushing the idea of specific performance – conflicting statements as either action would slow / derail the admin process if successful.

8th August – BEN reports that Bassini has blocked the admins from selling to FV by obtaining a High Court injunction preventing the sale of Burden Leisure Ltd (the parent company of the Club).

BLOCKED: Laurence Bassini prevents Wanderers sale with court injunction
theboltonnews.co.uk

LB finally takes court action on what he believes was his contractual right established in the first week of May 2019. Hell of long wait to get to this point. Main questions being – if he believed he had a valid contract with KA why entertain the administration process? Why not enforce his rights straight away or at least when it became clear FV were favoured bidders back in end of June?
Clearly administrators will go hard in their response and challenge the injunction. Injunctions are no small matter for the courts, so potential serious financial implications for LB if injunction is overturned and damage is done to the takeover/club as a result.
Interesting aside is that, as reported by Marc Iles, the injunction is against both Burden Leisure Ltd and Inner Circle Investments (Ken’s Company) – which could be interesting for those baying for Ken’s own blood. Involving Ken's company could cost Ken some money to defend/deal with this issue - Although he may sit back and let the administrators lawyers deal with it as it also concerns Burden Leisure Ltd.

Sorry for the length of this, but wanted to plot it out (as best as possible in a short time) - all in all, not good for #bwfc, but it has been lurking in the background for a while. I think everyone had just hoped LB wouldn't have the funds or the legal appetite for it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Just as a random question: Just how much would the club and grounds raise as real estate to property developers if, by some strange unthinkable coincidence, it all folded into non-existence? Since everybody connected with the sale etc, every single person of them, are entrepreneurs and not football lovers and all fighting over Pound signs whilst we as a club have only a Sunday League side left for the purpose of football. We could of course, possibly field a team of hedge fund managers and accountants who once studied sports science economics at university, but that's going beyond the pale.....I think....anyway, back to the question.....What is the attraction in owning Bolton Wanderers ?

About £6 million for the real estate, all of it. About £half a million for the 'golden share'.

Can you explain why the golden share has any value at all in a liquidation?

It hasn't. I was merely answering Tango's question and putting an approximate value on Bolton Wanderers. ( Yes, I know he asked "if it all folded into non-existence", but he also concluded with "what is the attraction in owning Bolton Wanderers".)
If you dispute my estimates then give Tango your own answer, I'm not claiming infallibility, just replying to a post.

I think your land estimate is about right - though its worth more to certain developers - and of course is a risk depending on planning permissions.

As for TD's question - the answer is lots would love to own us - as we know the problem is that even with the supposed magic administration bullet the debt to take on (or clear) is in excess of £25M. The problem even now that it is reduced by a considerable amount by the admin process is that is an incredibly high amount of debt to secure or pay off to own a league one club.

Had we been for sale in the championship with that debt level I imagine a different story - lots want clubs they can propel towards the premiership and that value wouldn't have been too extortionate.

Unfortunately as a championship side Anderson had ££ in his eyes and therefore the deal was again prohibitive to any sensible buyer. We are very attractive and were the cost closer to say 10-15M I think again we'd have a lot of interest.

But at the levels we are talking and given we will make a loss of around £5M if we want a modestly competitive squad - its a huge amount of investment required. Our size and history is almost working against us - it would be a lot easier to run a smaller club without the land and property portfolio of ours the complex hotel etc and at least stabilise it. The trouble with BWFC is it has huge potential - but that potential is locked behind a very high entry barrier. If you look at something similar like Sunderland - their owner did something similar to ED and wrote a load of debt off but still their new owner is someone looking to invest quite small amounts and run on a tighter commercial basis. If that fails they will be in exactly the same spot we are now. A high cost of entry - for a club with potential but a long journey with lots of costs buried within that trip.

You then add in complexities like the EFL spending rules - and even a rich billionaire wanting a new toy might be put off given the turnover to spending rules in league's one and two....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Aren't Quantuma supposedly announcing their own preferred bidder this afternoon? Or has that been sunk by Bassini too?

[BWFC_Insane]

Aren't Quantuma supposedly announcing their own preferred bidder this afternoon? Or has that been sunk by Bassini too?

Depends who you believe. I'm not convinced they were ever announcing anything. Perhaps they will. I think hotel covered by injunction though given it is part of BL....

[Bruce Rioja]

Cheers Spotty

[bristol_Wanderer3]

^^ We made an operating loss of £13m last time we were in L1, before player sales and asset sales. Even though that included some players on ridiculously high wages for L1, I struggle to see how we get it down to much below £10m when and if we have a full squad. For this reason I see FV as very much sticking plaster that will last a couple of years tops. The concern is from L2 it looks a long way back and even less attractive to potential buyers. I am not sure our potential would look big enough to endure those losses from there.

Also Sunderland are not far behind us. Their owner is struggling to fund their massive losses for a 2nd season in L1, and is looking to get rid.

I read the Hezzle thread also. It is a good timeline of Bassini's involvement, and legal threats he has been making that sometimes gets lost amongst his ridiculous bluster.

[Prufrock]

Went to school with old Hezzle. Know all the celebs, me.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I don't think it will last weeks, and if it does we are f*cked (sideways, along with Bury, out of the league).

He's got an ex parte injunction (I.e. he got it without anyone there to oppose it). They're an "emergency" injunction given to "hold the ring" (i.e. keep things the same for a short while) until there can be a proper hearing. Because the other side aren't there, his lawyers are obliged to give "full and Frank" disclosure which should include how the club is f*cked if this injunction happens. They're thick or bent, or the judge is a coward.

From what I understand, he's suing KA because he should've been able to buy the club back in April or whenever. Not the admins, Ken. That's a fantasy at this point. When you get one of these injunctions you're usually looking at 14 days max to get back in court with all parties represented. I'd be surprised if this wasn't back in next week.

I will eat Paddy Ashdown's hat, and then Geoffrey Boycott's hat if it gets upheld at the rehearing. He wants to enforce the sake of the club from 4 months ago before it went into admin, in a case that would take months and almost certainly see the end of the club. Even if, *even if*, the mad bastard is right about his agreement with Ken back in march, there's no way he's getting control of the club. He needs to sue Ken.

So to;dr, it'll get kicked out next week. By which time Quantana will have decided on the hotel. If FV get it, we'll get taken over but with an extra points deduction for the Coventry have which won't happen. If they don't get it, we're fecked. So cheers Lawrence, best case an extra 3 down and even more certain relegation.

Well, you're wrong on the Coventry match not happening.
You also conveniently forget that DR & P introduced a "data room fee" of £25,000 which (despite widespread reporting at the time of five or six parties paying it) attracted just one payment, by FV. Why should anybody who is already in possession of a Sales and Purchase Agreement to buy out the majority shares in a company go through that farce. Paul Appleton, as highest honcho directly involved in David Rubin & Partners, knew about this and deliberately ignored it. He's also been very aggressive in his public comments about Bassini - probably trying to scare him off, because the wazzock made a major miscalculation in not allowing Bassini into the reckoning - he has a Duty to get the best prices for the creditors, and by imposing the ridiculous Data Room Fee he shot himself in the foot. He, Appleton, also knew early on that FV were fudging the books, and again chose to ignore it...
If anybody is to blame for us going under, if we do, is Paul Appleton (yes, higher than Anderson, higher than FV, higher than Bassini, higher than EFL - although that entire bunch of pricks collectively have not helped).

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't think it will last weeks, and if it does we are f*cked (sideways, along with Bury, out of the league).

He's got an ex parte injunction (I.e. he got it without anyone there to oppose it). They're an "emergency" injunction given to "hold the ring" (i.e. keep things the same for a short while) until there can be a proper hearing. Because the other side aren't there, his lawyers are obliged to give "full and Frank" disclosure which should include how the club is f*cked if this injunction happens. They're thick or bent, or the judge is a coward.

From what I understand, he's suing KA because he should've been able to buy the club back in April or whenever. Not the admins, Ken. That's a fantasy at this point. When you get one of these injunctions you're usually looking at 14 days max to get back in court with all parties represented. I'd be surprised if this wasn't back in next week.

I will eat Paddy Ashdown's hat, and then Geoffrey Boycott's hat if it gets upheld at the rehearing. He wants to enforce the sake of the club from 4 months ago before it went into admin, in a case that would take months and almost certainly see the end of the club. Even if, *even if*, the mad bastard is right about his agreement with Ken back in march, there's no way he's getting control of the club. He needs to sue Ken.

So to;dr, it'll get kicked out next week. By which time Quantana will have decided on the hotel. If FV get it, we'll get taken over but with an extra points deduction for the Coventry have which won't happen. If they don't get it, we're fecked. So cheers Lawrence, best case an extra 3 down and even more certain relegation.

Well, you're wrong on the Coventry match not happening.
You also conveniently forget that DR & P introduced a "data room fee" of £25,000 which (despite widespread reporting at the time of five or six parties paying it) attracted just one payment, by FV. Why should anybody who is already in possession of a Sales and Purchase Agreement to buy out the majority shares in a company go through that farce. Paul Appleton, as highest honcho directly involved in David Rubin & Partners, knew about this and deliberately ignored it. He's also been very aggressive in his public comments about Bassini - probably trying to scare him off, because the wazzock made a major miscalculation in not allowing Bassini into the reckoning - he has a Duty to get the best prices for the creditors, and by imposing the ridiculous Data Room Fee he shot himself in the foot. He, Appleton, also knew early on that FV were fudging the books, and again chose to ignore it...
If anybody is to blame for us going under, if we do, is Paul Appleton (yes, higher than Anderson, higher than FV, higher than Bassini, higher than EFL - although that entire bunch of pricks collectively have not helped).

Christ what a load of nonsense. If Bassini wanted to challenge it he could have got an injunction preventing Ken putting it into administration. He did not. If he wanted to challenge it he could have got an injunction as soon as administrators were appointed. He did not. Instead he put a bid in.

The administrator laid out a clear set of requirements for any bids - to be received by 12th June - including EFL approval of the takeover and subsequent business plan.

Bassini did not meet those requirements. He was not named preferred bidder as a result. Again had he wanted to test that he could have applied for an injunction then. He did not. Instead he went off trying to find someone to lend him the money. Over a month later he came back claiming he had the money via David Sullivan. Once again the plan did not meet the clearly laid out requirements of the administrators nor did he have EFL approval.

Those are facts. Whether or not he has a case against Anderson a basic point is that from April to this date at no point has he secured EFL approval for a takeover.

A final fact - is that the administrators first aim is to rescue the business. Their second is to do that whilst maximising the return for creditors.

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure what the admins have got to do with Bassini's overall claim that has led to the injunction (other than it prevents them selling it). That is against Ken for their agreement back in April(?). That must IMO have come from a super cautious judge being led up the garden path on the basis it will be back in court for a contested hearing asap.

I will plait fog if the outcome of this is Bassini gets the club. Even if he is right, it's going to take months to sort out by which time there will be no club. There's no way (famous last words) the High Court is ordering a permanent injunction pending KA and Lab's dispute that will lead to the club going bust. His remedy will be compensation from Ken.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm not sure what the admins have got to do with Bassini's overall claim that has led to the injunction (other than it prevents them selling it). That is against Ken for their agreement back in April(?). That must IMO have come from a super cautious judge being led up the garden path on the basis it will be back in court for a contested hearing asap.

I will plait fog if the outcome of this is Bassini gets the club. Even if he is right, it's going to take months to sort out by which time there will be no club. There's no way (famous last words) the High Court is ordering a permanent injunction pending KA and Lab's dispute that will lead to the club going bust. His remedy will be compensation from Ken.

I'm not saying Bassini is right. What I'm saying is that by imposing a fee to enter the data room the Administrators put a significant obstacle into the path of a party who already believed that they had a contract. David Rubin & Partners knew this, knew of the litigious nature of the party they were excluding and still went ahead with awarding preferred bidder status to a bunch of Shysters. Paul Appleton and DR & P put themselves directly in the path of this particular legal bullet, the pillocks.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not sure what the admins have got to do with Bassini's overall claim that has led to the injunction (other than it prevents them selling it). That is against Ken for their agreement back in April(?). That must IMO have come from a super cautious judge being led up the garden path on the basis it will be back in court for a contested hearing asap.

I will plait fog if the outcome of this is Bassini gets the club. Even if he is right, it's going to take months to sort out by which time there will be no club. There's no way (famous last words) the High Court is ordering a permanent injunction pending KA and Lab's dispute that will lead to the club going bust. His remedy will be compensation from Ken.

I'm not saying Bassini is right. What I'm saying is that by imposing a fee to enter the data room the Administrators put a significant obstacle into the path of a party who already believed that they had a contract. David Rubin & Partners knew this, knew of the litigious nature of the party they were excluding and still went ahead with awarding preferred bidder status to a bunch of Shysters. Paul Appleton and DR & P put themselves directly in the path of this particular legal bullet, the pillocks.

The contract was with Ken/ICI not the admins. Ken also charged a fee to see the books - Bassini didn't pay that either - did not do full due diligence either time. The injunction is against Burnden Leisure and ICI - not the administrators.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm not sure what the admins have got to do with Bassini's overall claim that has led to the injunction (other than it prevents them selling it). That is against Ken for their agreement back in April(?). That must IMO have come from a super cautious judge being led up the garden path on the basis it will be back in court for a contested hearing asap.

I will plait fog if the outcome of this is Bassini gets the club. Even if he is right, it's going to take months to sort out by which time there will be no club. There's no way (famous last words) the High Court is ordering a permanent injunction pending KA and Lab's dispute that will lead to the club going bust. His remedy will be compensation from Ken.

I'm not saying Bassini is right. What I'm saying is that by imposing a fee to enter the data room the Administrators put a significant obstacle into the path of a party who already believed that they had a contract. David Rubin & Partners knew this, knew of the litigious nature of the party they were excluding and still went ahead with awarding preferred bidder status to a bunch of Shysters. Paul Appleton and DR & P put themselves directly in the path of this particular legal bullet, the pillocks.

The contract was with Ken/ICI not the admins. Ken also charged a fee to see the books - Bassini didn't pay that either - did not do full due diligence either time. The injunction is against Burnden Leisure and ICI - not the administrators.

I know who the injunction is against. The Administrators are still in the firing line.

[Worthy4England]

Bottom line is, however this pans out, the Admins are entirely responsible for either getting it working or sacking it all off. I think over time, it's become quite apparent that Admins have been at the whim of the parties so FV's initial £24.04m offer, looks like it might have had the odd caveat, but then again no-one seemed able to establish the level of debt between that recorded and that which the secured creditors think they're owed...It is possible that looking at one bid in isolation (Club) that any circularity wasn't spotted as it only appeared when you look at Club and Hotel side by side - in which case they wouldn't have known at the point they made FV, PB.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Bottom line is, however this pans out, the Admins are entirely responsible for either getting it working or sacking it all off. I think over time, it's become quite apparent that Admins have been at the whim of the parties so FV's initial £24.04m offer, looks like it might have had the odd caveat, but then again no-one seemed able to establish the level of debt between that recorded and that which the secured creditors think they're owed...It is possible that looking at one bid in isolation (Club) that any circularity wasn't spotted as it only appeared when you look at Club and Hotel side by side - in which case they wouldn't have known at the point they made FV, PB.

Whether they knew before, during or after making FV preferred bidders, at whatever time that particular junction was, they would have known that a litigious pain in the arse was in existence claiming to own the majority shares in the club's owning company. They (admins) made an almighty cock-up by just ignoring that fact.

[BWFC_Insane]

Bottom line is, however this pans out, the Admins are entirely responsible for either getting it working or sacking it all off. I think over time, it's become quite apparent that Admins have been at the whim of the parties so FV's initial £24.04m offer, looks like it might have had the odd caveat, but then again no-one seemed able to establish the level of debt between that recorded and that which the secured creditors think they're owed...It is possible that looking at one bid in isolation (Club) that any circularity wasn't spotted as it only appeared when you look at Club and Hotel side by side - in which case they wouldn't have known at the point they made FV, PB.

Whether they knew before, during or after making FV preferred bidders, at whatever time that particular junction was, they would have known that a litigious pain in the arse was in existence claiming to own the majority shares in the club's owning company. They (admins) made an almighty cock-up by just ignoring that fact.

I’m unsure what you think the admins could have done about it. He had same chance as everyone else. They were appointed. By that point it was always whether he disputed that. What did you want them to do?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Bottom line is, however this pans out, the Admins are entirely responsible for either getting it working or sacking it all off. I think over time, it's become quite apparent that Admins have been at the whim of the parties so FV's initial £24.04m offer, looks like it might have had the odd caveat, but then again no-one seemed able to establish the level of debt between that recorded and that which the secured creditors think they're owed...It is possible that looking at one bid in isolation (Club) that any circularity wasn't spotted as it only appeared when you look at Club and Hotel side by side - in which case they wouldn't have known at the point they made FV, PB.

Whether they knew before, during or after making FV preferred bidders, at whatever time that particular junction was, they would have known that a litigious pain in the arse was in existence claiming to own the majority shares in the club's owning company. They (admins) made an almighty cock-up by just ignoring that fact.

I’m unsure what you think the admins could have done about it. He had same chance as everyone else. They were appointed. By that point it was always whether he disputed that. What did you want them to do?

They could have preliminarily put FV up against Bassini, with deadlines to see who got over the line first. Similar to the procedure in Scotland for selling a house if there is a 'draw' after the sealed bid stage. It's not onerous and relieves the Admins of having to name a preferred bidder on a rigged basis. They were probably still going to end up with a shit bidder, whether FV or Bassini had won it, but it would have removed the possibility of anybody saying the Admins had played foul/fxcked up.

[TKIZ!]

Thanks for the timeline LLS, makes a little bit of sense to my untrained eye.

My basic understanding is that Lorry Ballooner has instigated proceedings against Ken not the admins.

He did have loads of opportunity to put injunctions in at any time, especially if he believe's that he's owed the club.

Rubin is a seasoned football admin, can't see the firm taking a decision like charging 25k for the books without understanding any legal ramifications. But then again I'm usually wrong

[BWFC_Insane]

Bottom line is, however this pans out, the Admins are entirely responsible for either getting it working or sacking it all off. I think over time, it's become quite apparent that Admins have been at the whim of the parties so FV's initial £24.04m offer, looks like it might have had the odd caveat, but then again no-one seemed able to establish the level of debt between that recorded and that which the secured creditors think they're owed...It is possible that looking at one bid in isolation (Club) that any circularity wasn't spotted as it only appeared when you look at Club and Hotel side by side - in which case they wouldn't have known at the point they made FV, PB.

Whether they knew before, during or after making FV preferred bidders, at whatever time that particular junction was, they would have known that a litigious pain in the arse was in existence claiming to own the majority shares in the club's owning company. They (admins) made an almighty cock-up by just ignoring that fact.

I’m unsure what you think the admins could have done about it. He had same chance as everyone else. They were appointed. By that point it was always whether he disputed that. What did you want them to do?

They could have preliminarily put FV up against Bassini, with deadlines to see who got over the line first. Similar to the procedure in Scotland for selling a house if there is a 'draw' after the sealed bid stage. It's not onerous and relieves the Admins of having to name a preferred bidder on a rigged basis. They were probably still going to end up with a shit bidder, whether FV or Bassini had won it, but it would have removed the possibility of anybody saying the Admins had played foul/fxcked up.

They did. Everyone had same chance. FV had paid Ken to see books and do due diligence before pulling out. They then paid admins a second time. Bassini didn’t bother twice. But everyone had same information same requirements and same chance.

I have absolutely no idea how they could have done anything else. Bassini had the exact same chance. The fact he didn’t pay for the books either time speaks volumes about credibility.