Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Latest BWFC Accounts - Year ended 30th June, 2020

Latest BWFC Accounts - Year ended 30th June, 2020

+7
luckyPeterpiper
Cajunboy
Feby
boltonbonce
Ten Bobsworth
Sluffy
BoltonTillIDie
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 7]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
As a company FV would also be having to carry any trading loss of the hotel during the Covid period as well Peter.

As for I follow, this is what Cajun posted a few days back, hope it helps -

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Last season, owing to playing games behind closed doors in light of the coronavirus pandemic, clubs were allowed to live stream matches to supporters at home via iFollow or equivalent club streaming services.
That will continue to a degree this season for Wanderers fans, with the EFL confirming which matches can be live streamed.

All midweek matches unless selected for broadcast by Sky Sports can be streamed.
Games to be played on Bank Holidays and those matches which should have taken place at 3pm on a Saturday but have been displaced for non-TV purposes can also be streamed at the discretion of the home club.

Manchester Evening news

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

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
Thank you mate. I'm particularly happy about the midweek games being available since I won't be able to get to most of them this season. I doubt we'll be selected by Sky all that much since we're not in the championship so hopefully it means I'll at least have the option of following them on i-follow (and of course the magnificent portal).

I've recently returned to the office but in truth I am struggling to get things going again since I'm a training manager these days and actually recruiting people and running a training course on site is still proving a bit more problematic than my boss would like. As a result I've been working late a lot recently, mainly because the last two courses were done 'virtually' (ie video conferencing) and in two separate groups each five hours long with a one hour break between the 'morning' group and afternoon groups.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Cheers Peter, I hope you new(ish) job goes well for you.

I can't really imagine training people via video conferencing so the best of luck with that.

I used to find recruiting people very boring - asking the same questions of several people and having to go through the motions when it became clear early on that the candidate was not suitable.

I'm happy that I don't need to do such stuff any more.

Hope you find it more fun than I ever did!

Keep safe mate.

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

I've not followed TW closely for years now, so apologies if I've credited Worthy as an accountant if he is not, he certainly was (still is?) their financial 'guru' on there that everybody else seemed to accept what he said without queering it.

He does seem to have some knowledge of accountancy but he clearly put that a poor second to his personal prejudice in his dislike for Anderson and accordingly,  for me anyway, by putting his personal view before his professionalism made me question his competence in the understanding of what was actually going on.

I likened him to some extent to Wanderlust on here who claimed to be a 'business consultant' who similarly let his personal hatred of Anderson cloud whatever professional knowledge he claimed he had.

I switched off from seeking out Worthy's diatribes against Anderson, in the same way as I had to constantly correct Wanderlust's many rants about KA on here, as clearly neither of them could understand what and how he had to run an insolvent company and still keep it trading whilst at the same time keep the right side of the law whilst doing so.

To be fair Bob I'm pretty sure Iles made mention of Aldridge being an unsecured creditor and maybe even ICSM and Athos (I can't remember now without looking it up) but you are right in the sense that very few if any, pondered on why that had come about/allowed to have happened - seeing that KA and Aldridge would both know full well the financial state of the company.

Perhaps if the likes of Worthy and Wanderlust had kept their professional heads on (rather than their prejudicial ones) then maybe the could have thought 'how odd' and 'I wonder why that happened' (which was the stage I got too) and applied their 'business advisor' skills to try to work out why that was, rather ignore it completely due to their blind hatred of Anderson instead.

Unfortunately there were many to easily influenced with the views of Iles and the ST (fed no doubt from the inside by Holdsworth) rather than understand that in the simplest terms the business was bust, Anderson had no liability to keep it funded from his own pocket and not all bills and wages could be paid on time (if at all).

Anderson ran the club in a way to keep it going until a buyer could ultimately be found (within the limits of Company Law) - Eddie Davies tried hard to sell the club and failed - that's why we ended up with Holdsworth and Anderson - there clearly wasn't any credible buyers out there lining up to buy the club off KA until Sharon's consortium eventually turned up - otherwise the Administrator would have sold it to them and not go through all the trouble waiting for Sharon to get all her finances in order first.

Anyway all water under the bridge now and instead we have new queries to consider such as why the businesses debt now exceeds all its assets, and who is paying the bills and why?

At least I say 'we' have new queries to consider because apart from you and I, haven't seen anyone else with the least concern about it.

They most certainly would if Sharon (or whoever is footing the bills) pulled the plug anytime soon!
Its all gone quiet on TW after the Hetty Wainthropp response to BWFC Insane's comments. I mean you'd have to be insane to have expected KA to match Blumarble's £4m with no available security and with Holdsworth getting half the shares for nowt.

The Pjsl and Athos debts were, of course, significant because this was a clear demonstration that neither were being preferred and both were having to stand in line like the other unsecured creditors. 

I don't expect Iles would have  mentioned that and I don't believe he has ever mentioned the fact that the ICSM transaction was not to line KA's pocket but to help fund Holdsworth's pay off, keep Blumarble at bay and avoid corporation tax charges on the amounts paid out of BL to fund these transactions.

Has Iles or the ST ever mentioned how much Holdsworth's involvement cost BWFC? I don't believe they have and I doubt they ever will.

 P.S. Had a quick look at Deloitte's Football Finance 2021 Review. A 'woke' culture seems to be increasingly evident with, for example, women's footie taking precedence over the EFL for the third year running. 

2019/20 financial results were, as expected, adversely affected by COVID not least in the Championship where aggregate losses exceeded £500m. It may have affected FV's results as well but I'm not sure that it would be by all that much. FV benefitted from £1m in government grants and costs in the first month or two of its financial year might well have been picked up in the Administrators accounts rather than FV's.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Its all gone quiet on TW after the Hetty Wainthropp response to BWFC Insane's comments. I mean you'd have to be insane to have expected KA to match Blumarble's £4m with no available security and with Holdsworth getting half the shares for nowt.

The Pjsl and Athos debts were, of course, significant because this was a clear demonstration that neither were being preferred and both were having to stand in line like the other unsecured creditors. 

I don't expect Iles would have  mentioned that and I don't believe he has ever mentioned the fact that the ICSM transaction was not to line KA's pocket but to help fund Holdsworth's pay off, keep Blumarble at bay and avoid corporation tax charges on the amounts paid out of BL to fund these transactions.

Has Iles or the ST ever mentioned how much Holdsworth's involvement cost BWFC? I don't believe they have and I doubt they ever will.

 P.S. Had a quick look at Deloitte's Football Finance 2021 Review. A 'woke' culture seems to be increasingly evident with, for example, women's footie taking precedence over the EFL for the third year running. 

2019/20 financial results were, as expected, adversely affected by COVID not least in the Championship where aggregate losses exceeded £500m. It may have affected FV's results as well but I'm not sure that it would be by all that much. FV benefitted from £1m in government grants and costs in the first month or two of its financial year might well have been picked up in the Administrators accounts rather than FV's.

Iles is completely biased and/or utterly stupid and ignorant when it comes to Anderson/Holdsworth/understanding accounts and/or how business need to be run compliant with the law (note not compliant with morals - breaking the law lands you in jail not acting immorally).

I honestly believe Iles probably intends well but he should stick to understanding what the facts actually mean rather relying on the poison from others - and passing the poison on.

He's been completely unprofessional in his behaviour and fanned the flames/ poured more oil on the fire of what many, many others wanted to believe was happening and why it was.

Unfortunately people, such as those on TW (and most other places too) refuse to reassess their opinions and will not thank you or I for pointing out what DID happen rather than what the lynch mob BELIEVED happen.

I don't see much point in flogging a dead horse myself and think it is about time to move on - haters are only going to carry on hating, as they say these days.

As for wokeism - I'm still somewhat unsure what that is and all the other social nuances that seem to have sprung up in the last few years.

I am an honest person and simply don't wish to upset or offend anyone with what I say or do.

Does it matter much which order Deloitte reports the various leagues?

To my way of thinking - and with it all being about 'numbers' - I would have thought the natural sequence they should be presented in is in descending financial order.

I'm not sure how 'sequencing' the Women's football accounts before the EFL promotes whatever it is Deloitte's is trying to 'message' by doing so - and I would imagine the majority of those reading their report would 'skip' over that section as it probably isn't their primary interest or concern.

So if the reason they did do that is 'woke', then as I say I simply don't yet understand it.

It neither makes logical sense - why not put the women's football details at the front before the PL details then - or place them in a descending financial sequence of all the leagues?

It's neither one thing or the other - and probably meaningless to most users of the Deloitte report who will seek the information they require, irrespective of where the women's accounts are shown.

What as been achieved?

Nothing at all from my point of view - maybe I'm missing something though?

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Orwell understood the significance of history when he wrote in '1984':

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. History has stopped.”


There is a supposition that history is accurately recorded at the relevant time but by no means is that always the case. I suppose with age and experience you get to see propaganda more quickly than when young and I can't help but think that we are seeing more blatant propaganda now than at any time in my lifetime and folk seem to accept it without question.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Yes I agree.

I'm constantly amazed how people unilaterally believe what the read on social media, almost without giving it a second thought.

There's no doubt at all that more than a few promote fake/false information knowingly - some deliberately to further an agenda, others just for a laugh.

I'm constantly amazed too how stupid / naive people are to get taken in by it - and that includes many you would think did actually have a brain in their heads.

There's always been propaganda - the Pharos's built monuments so that others would know how powerful they were, yet these days with everybody having instantaneous access on social media, people get to hear about things and follow the crowd immediately simply because everybody else is!

People believed QAnon which was about Trump saving the world from paedophile devil worshipers, or something like that - I simply can't understand how utterly dumb some folk are.

If that's the benchmark these days then its little wonder people happily believe Iles about accounts and Anderson was the Devil incarnate.

We get what we deserve I suppose?

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Other examples of the wokery in Deloitte's report, Sluffy, are the three pages on discrimination and diversity, another two pages on climate change and a somewhat exaggerated emphasis on Leagues 1 and 2 being 'community assets'.

Of course footie clubs are an important part of local communities but how many are actually owned or funded by folk from those communities? 

The annual cost of subsidising League 1 and 2 clubs is comparatively small for well-heeled individuals but it doesn't half jump up if you fancy owning and sustaining a Championship club.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Thought you might like this Bob.

Although it isn't exactly about woke it does go to show how utterly bonkers people are by believing what tripe the read on social media.

I suspect most of wokery started the same way too...

The last paragraph sums up social media and the idiots that believe the guff they read...

"Sadly for a lot of people it's very hard to get out these kinds of world views and ideologies once you're in them," explains Chloe Colliver from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. "That's not just because you're surrounded by that disinformation day in and day out, but also because it becomes your social network and your community."

How anti-vaxxers are living and loving in a Covid world

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

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
£3.5 million loss doesn't sound encouraging. I know they were expecting income from the (cancelled)  Rugby League World Cup but even so at this level that's a chunk of moolah.

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:£3.5 million loss doesn't sound encouraging. I know they were expecting income from the (cancelled)  Rugby League World Cup but even so at this level that's a chunk of moolah.
It is a lot of money considering FV's share capital is only £2million, Lusty, but I've got a little task for you on your return to the fold. 


  1. Can you work out (in words and figures) how the £28.5m, FV agreed to pay for the assets, has been arrived at? In other words who was due to get the £28.5m (see pages 10 & 11)
  2. Who has already been paid the £8.1m shown in the cash flow statement. (see page 14)
  3. The holding company (i.e. not the hotel or the football club) lost £500K. Any ideas were that money went? (see page 13)


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

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:£3.5 million loss doesn't sound encouraging. I know they were expecting income from the (cancelled)  Rugby League World Cup but even so at this level that's a chunk of moolah.
It is a lot of money considering FV's share capital is only £2million, Lusty, but I've got a little task for you on your return to the fold. 


  1. Can you work out (in words and figures) how the £28.5m, FV agreed to pay for the assets, has been arrived at? In other words who was due to get the £28.5m (see pages 10 & 11)
  2. Who has already been paid the £8.1m shown in the cash flow statement. (see page 14)
  3. The holding company (i.e. not the hotel or the football club) lost £500K. Any ideas were that money went? (see page 13)


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

:tumbleweed:

Did you honestly expect him to reply Bob?

Whitesince63


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Weren’t we supposed to have paid the £3.5m debt owed to creditors by yesterday to prevent the further 15 point penalty, or have I got that wrong? I haven’t heard anything on it so far which surprises and worry’s me if it was. 🤔

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Weren’t we supposed to have paid the £3.5m debt owed to creditors by yesterday to prevent the further 15 point penalty, or have I got that wrong? I haven’t heard anything on it so far which surprises and worry’s me if it was. 🤔

Yes the deadline was yesterday but the monies could even have been settled before that date.

There is no obligation for the club to announce that things have been settled - although you would have thought they would have - maybe they are just waiting for confirmation from the Administrator that all the unsecured claimants have been settled in full before doing so?

Personally I don't think there is anything to be concerned about in regards to the settlement of this debt.

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
2 Years ago we lived through this nightmare, never knowing if we'd see it through.

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

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

:tumbleweed:

Did you honestly expect him to reply Bob?

Not at all, Sluffy. It was just a little task for Lusty or anyone else to figure out. There are quite a few clues for those with the patience and resolve to follow them but I've tired of it all tbh.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

:tumbleweed:

Did you honestly expect him to reply Bob?

Not at all, Sluffy. It was just a little task for Lusty or anyone else to figure out. There are quite a few clues for those with the patience and resolve to follow them but I've tired of it all tbh.

Well he certainly thought he knew it when Anderson was in charge but clearly he didn't - that's beyond any possible dispute since the Administrators went thoroughly through the books.

I also think others who also chose to judge the Anderson era on the prejudices rather than the facts (which lets be honest was more or less everyone else bar thee and me) STILL aren't much concerned about how the finances behind how the football club are the ultimate determinate of what happens on the pitch.

Good job then that we can now rely on Marc Iles to be on the look out from now on though!





:facepalm:

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Do you mean to say, Sluffy, that you are not entirely reassured by Iles of the Beeno? Me neither. The poor lamb's never had his eye on 'the financial ball' since he first set foot in Notlob c.12 years ago.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin


Bolton Wanderers FC is delighted to confirm that it has now met its obligations and agreed settlement arrangements with its unsecured creditors pertaining to Football Ventures (Whites) Ltd acquiring the club from the Administrators two years ago.

From the outset, the process has been led by Chairman Sharon Brittan and it now allows the Club to focus on an exciting future ahead.

Sharon said: “After a very challenging two years we are absolutely delighted to confirm that the Club has reached agreement with its unsecured creditors.

“This ensures that we have met our obligations, satisfied the EFL requirements and are therefore free of any embargoes and penalties.

“I would like to thank our amazing colleagues who have worked tirelessly throughout this process over the past two years and also the creditors whose patience and understanding have not only been helpful but truly appreciated.

“I’d also like to place on record our gratitude to the EFL, Jason Elliott of Cowgill’s, Paul Appleton of Begbies Traynor Group and our former COO Andrew Gartside.

“As custodians of Bolton Wanderers the future now looks extremely bright and we can now continue delivering a high performance but sustainable football club led by the Board, our Manager Ian Evatt, CEO Neil Hart and our talented and hard-working colleagues.”

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Fantastic news, onwards and upwards now  cheers

Whitesince63


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Yep great news and hopefully with all that now behind us we can get on with building for the future?

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
And yet some say Anderson did nothing wrong.

A bill of around £10 million in unsecured creditors – which included debts to HMRC, Bolton Council, St John’s Ambulance, local bakeries and travel companies – had been run up by the previous ownership

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
:bomb:

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote::bomb:
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:And yet some say Anderson did nothing wrong.

A bill of around £10 million in unsecured creditors – which included debts to HMRC, Bolton Council, St John’s Ambulance, local bakeries and travel companies – had been run up by the previous ownership

Joking apart as per the last couple of posts, you (and many others) simply don't get it.

Anderson never ran up the debt - he had nothing at all to do with it - it was the company he owned - Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Club Ltd - that ran up the debt.

It became insolvent - which means it could no longer cover its debts from the income it was earning.

Anderson could have been richer than Abramovitch or poorer than a church mouse but either way it doesn't mean that he had to settle the limited companies debts from his own pocket.

That's why companies are LIMITED.

It means the owners of a company (the ones who have bought shares in it) are 'limited' to the values of the shares they bought and no more than that.

It means they don't lose their homes, cars or life savings if the company goes bust.

I don't know if you or anyone else off here owned shares in Burnden Leisure from when they first went on sale - if so, if it wasn't for the fact that Burnden Leisure is a limited company too, then you (and all other current share holders) WOULD be liable PERSONALLY for this £10m worth of debt!!!

That's why companies are set up with limited liability and have been doing so for over 200 years now!

I know I'm talking to the wall trying to explain the FACTS of how companies run because people, just like you, prefer to believe the utter bollocks and hatred that they read on social media.

Even if you don't understand stuff like this - most people don't - just a quick look at something as basic as Wikipedia can easily give you a Janet and John explanation which tells you why Anderson wasn't personally responsible (from his own pocket) for the debts of a limited company that he owned!

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

And to top it all off the Administrators have been through all the books and they've not found anything that Anderson did wrong either!

Holdsworth's company bought the club, but he nor his company didn't have any money to keep it going, (his money man having bailed out at the last minute).

Holdsworth company took on a £5m loan from BluMarble BUT secured the debt against BWFC (????) and had no money to pay that back either!

Anderson kept the club afloat as long as he could in order to find a buyer to sell the club on to and whether by luck or good management we ended up with Sharon rather than got liquidated (BWFAC and Burnden Leisure both being on that road to oblivion).

Anderson may not be a saint but he's certainly not the bad guy in all of this either.

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
This is welcome news even if it is low on detail and high on PR.

 Insofar as debts have been settled, it is unlikely that they have been repaid out of profits and the share capital of £2million was wholly swallowed up in FV's first year losses.

So where has the money come from, how much, on what terms and what is the present state of the balance sheet? FV were exceedingly slow in publishing the 2020 accounts, when will we get to see the 2021 numbers?

For the record, Bolton Wanderers has been a limited company since 1895 which, of course, means that shareholders and directors have never, since then, been personally responsible for club debts.

Neither would they ever have been liable except for particular legal obligations applicable to directors. I'm in no doubt that there will have been multiple occasions, over many years, when the club was unable to pay its debts on time but I am not aware of any director of the club ever being found personally responsible or liable.

Cajunboy

Cajunboy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Which begs the question, what is Sharon hoping to get from this project or is it purely for the fun(?) and vanity of owning a football club with a lot of history?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Which begs the question, what is Sharon hoping to get from this project or is it purely for the fun(?) and vanity of owning a football club with a lot of history?

That's what Bob and I have been asking for the last two years Cajun - it doesn't make any financial sense at all - never has from the beginning.

It's costing someone millions, so whose footing the bill, Sharon alone?

I very much doubt it, so who is, and for why?







Cajunboy

Cajunboy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Perhaps she worth more than we think, with all her directorships.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I know it seems unlikely though.

Have you looked into her other directorships and found out how successful the other businesses are?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Perhaps she worth more than we think, with all her directorships.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I know it seems unlikely though.

Have you looked into her other directorships and found out how successful the other businesses are?

Well according to Company Check they say she is a director in 23 Companies which had at the time they did their review (note - no date given) had a combined total of £2.9m in the bank, with assets totalling £54.6m but current liabilities of £90m!

Now remember this is only from records they can view - I have no doubt like Eddie had, she has business dealings in off shore accounts too.

Company Check claims (I don't know on what basis(?)) that her net worth was/is at that time £24.6m.

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

Now to put that into some perspective if she's bought BWFC with 'her' money, then assuming Mike James/Prescot Business Park used their money to just buy the hotel, then it would seem in round figures that she's probably already spent north of £10m of her nest egg already - above and beyond the value of the assets she's purchased at the club.

I personally think there is other money behind her - maybe there's a loaded Mr Brittan perhaps - but just based on what is in the public domain it makes no financial sense to, in effect, buy BWFC which was and still is mired in debt, when there were other, financially sounder, clubs to buy around that time - and since - if she only wanted it as a vanity project.

It's clearly not a sound financial investment, so I'm completely flummoxed why she did go to a seemingly exceeding amount of trouble to buy us just to piss £10m away from the word go.

Of course non of this is my business and as long as she's happy to pay the bills then she's free to do what she wants.

It's just a bit of a concern though if and when she ever decides - like Eddie did - that enough is enough!

No doubt we will jump that fence if it ever happens.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

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