Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Who do you believe?

Who do you believe?

+2
boltonbonce
Ten Bobsworth
6 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 10]

61Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 16:09

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Who the heck's Ken Cooper? I'd have more confidence in the late Tommy Cooper or Conway Twitty.
Its all only make believe!!!!!



Still no sign of the facts!!!!!!!!

62Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 16:50

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

No idea who Ken Cooper is Bob, sorry.

I guess you've seen him commenting about this somewhere or other and have not been impressed with what he's said.

One thing I've noted from a comment from one of you're less favoured people is. is this, which I find quite interesting - but have not checked it out myself yet...




Who do you believe? - Page 4 FKGLAntX0AYT6ey?format=jpg&name=900x900

The reason why I find it interesting is that it may(?) explain the apparent imbalance on the share ownership.

It could be that TWO government loans are somehow tied together and requiring matched funding - therefore FV had to put in £9.5m for their shares and the government loan for £5m actually equates in someway that the shares they hold in fact equating to an equal holding in the company?



For example if Bolton Nuts Ltd offered to buy FV and offered say £1 per share, then even though on paper the government own half the shares FV currently have, they would still end up with half the money - if you see what I mean.

Certainly not a good deal for us the poor taxpayers though!

63Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 17:01

Cajunboy

Cajunboy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

But is it smart accountancy and should we be pleased that Sharon & Co have got their hands on the tiller?

64Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 17:34

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Cajunboy wrote:But is it smart accountancy and should we be pleased that Sharon & Co have got their hands on the tiller?

It certainly seems to be a massive and unexpected windfall for her but is it really in the best interests of us the taxpayers?

You could look at it in the sense that if the government didn't prop up companies that wouldn't otherwise have survived that it would be spending money on unemployment payments plus receiving less tax from those who would otherwise not be in work.

For now Sharon still has a business making a trading loss and in substantial debt but the cashflow for the last year or so and the next one or two will have been helped out considerably.

65Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 17:37

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Bit embarrassed about our club benefiting from the Future Fund having recently posted about how the government has mismanaged Covid-related business grants and loans.
At least we're an actual trading business unlike some of the recipients.

66Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 17:59

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Following on from Phil Shortland's tweet above, it got me thinking about why apparently the government shares are for only 8% of the company which values FV at over £60m?

It could well be something to do with the EFL rule about those owning shares in clubs (plural) of less than 10%.

105         Interests in More Than One Football Club

105.5     The holding of not more than 10 per cent of the share capital of any football club shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Regulation 105 provided that those shares are, in the opinion of the Board, held purely for investment purposes only.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-10-association-and-dual-interests/


Maybe it has all been deliberately contrived so that the two loans totalling £9.5m are shown to be worth £5m worth of shares and that the share value (which obviously isn't a real life one) is set that the governments £5m 'worth' of shares, falls below the EFL's 10% threshold - if the government have loaned to other EFL clubs as well?

Not sure though why there is the 20% discount of what the government paid for their shares - which in theory meant they would have only paid £4m for - but it might explain why £1m worth of shares (117,000) have not been issued - although I can't work the reason out myself if it is actually was the case?

67Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 22:11

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

68Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 22:54

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy wrote:Following on from Phil Shortland's tweet above, it got me thinking about why apparently the government shares are for only 8% of the company which values FV at over £60m?

It could well be something to do with the EFL rule about those owning shares in clubs (plural) of less than 10%.

105         Interests in More Than One Football Club

105.5     The holding of not more than 10 per cent of the share capital of any football club shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Regulation 105 provided that those shares are, in the opinion of the Board, held purely for investment purposes only.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-10-association-and-dual-interests/


Maybe it has all been deliberately contrived so that the two loans totalling £9.5m are shown to be worth £5m worth of shares and that the share value (which obviously isn't a real life one) is set that the governments £5m 'worth' of shares, falls below the EFL's 10% threshold - if the government have loaned to other EFL clubs as well?

Not sure though why there is the 20% discount of what the government paid for their shares - which in theory meant they would have only paid £4m for - but it might explain why £1m worth of shares (117,000) have not been issued - although I can't work the reason out myself if it is actually was the case?

It could be, Sluffy, that the whole thing is simply an opportunistic contrivance to take advantage of the circumstances of the COVID pandemic and the lax financial facilities fostered by government to try to keep the economy going and reduce the numbers of business failures.

There might be other examples in the world of footie but to the best of my knowledge only the owners of BWFC and FGR have gained from COVID loans. FGR more than BWFC as it happens but I don't see anything smart or clever about it and frankly find the whole thing decidedly embarrassing.

The precise details remain hidden despite the legal obligation on FVWL to provide an updated statement of shareholdings. However the numbers that have been provided so far appear to stretch credibility like bubblegum. The £5m loan itself was devoid of any commercial rationale  and to exchange it for 8% of the shares, if that is really what has happened, is beyond absurd.

I strongly suspect that Lord Agnew has been spitting feathers for months and the conversion of irrecoverable loans into shares of dubious value has been a shabby tactic to get some of the dodgy loans off the books with the entirely spurious notion that one day the shares might be worth summat.

69Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 23:18

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin


Yes thanks BTID but it is far, far more complexed than what Iles says.

In simple terms whoever owns the shares in the company are the owners.

FV (who own BWFC) have issued 4,125,046.

The government have been given roughly 1,400,000 of them for this £5m loan.

1,400,000 of 4,125,046 is roughly 33%

So the government owns at least 33% of FV and not 8% as stated.

Those are facts.

What has happened is a bit of accountancy jiggery pokery to get round the EFL rules.

The shares have been said to be worth just over £8 a share each (in real life they are not) - this values the club at just over £60m and a government 'investment' of £5m (based on shares valued at £8 each) would mean the club have taken on a new part owner in the form of the government, equating to 8% of the clubs stated share 'value' or in other words in accordance with the EFL rules of outside ownership.

I don't doubt that everything done is legal but the real deal (as David Dickinson might say) is the the government owns at least a third of FV and I suspect  up to (or even just over) a half of the company itself.

They are in a sense however very much a sleeping partner in that the shares only need to be redeemed by FV if they want to sell up and move on - so I guess Sharon could be with us for many years to come yet.

I also suspect the government have also done similar arrangements with other league clubs too, although I'm not aware of any personally although I believe Bob is saying something along those lines have happened at Forest Green Rovers.

It's good for us in that FV clearly need help and got it from the government, Sharon still needs to fund the club until it is financially sustainable and also deal with the debts owing to PBP, Warburton and the Administrators fees - the government loan (or I suspect loans) won't be enough to sort those things out - and part of the deal in doing all this seems to have meant Sharon, Luckock and Mike James putting in a combined £7.5m of their own money into the company.

It shows real financial commitment from both sides (the government and Sharon/Luckock/James) - which is a good thing for us fans but whether the taxpayers should be propping up football clubs I guess is really a different story all together.

70Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 23:19

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

The answer to the problem I posed myself is obvious really!

Sluffy wrote:
Not sure though why there is the 20% discount of what the government paid for their shares - which in theory meant they would have only paid £4m for - but it might explain why £1m worth of shares (117,000) have not been issued - although I can't work the reason out myself if it is actually was the case?

I've been thinking all along that the shares haven't been issued because no one has paid for them BUT the answer is that they HAVE been issued (to the government) but NOT paid for - ie in respect of their 20% discount!

What has thrown me is that the 117,000 shares are shown unpaid at £8 per share, so I've assumed they were not the governments who only paid £6 per share for theirs but if you are getting them for free (as your discounted agreement) then it is irrelevant what the share value price is, you still are getting them for free!

The government shareholding would therefore be 1,399,566 + 117,857 = 1,517,423 and FV's 2,000,000 + 607,623 = 2,607,623

This however leads me to another problem...

Why then do the government share holding of 1.5m = 8% of FV ownership whilst FV's 2.5m = 92%???

It can't!

And if we flip it around the other way and say that the government gets twice as much for its shares than FV gets for theirs at the time of a future sale, then in effect the government then owns 3m shares (1.5m x 2) whilst FV still only hold 2.5m.

Does that mean in effect the government has overall control of the company yet be a minority shareholder at the same time???

I'm confused again!

71Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 23:44

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:It could be, Sluffy, that the whole thing is simply an opportunistic contrivance to take advantage of the circumstances of the COVID pandemic and the lax financial facilities fostered by government to try to keep the economy going and reduce the numbers of business failures.

There might be other examples in the world of footie but to the best of my knowledge only the owners of BWFC and FGR have gained from COVID loans. FGR more than BWFC as it happens but I don't see anything smart or clever about it and frankly find the whole thing decidedly embarrassing.

The precise details remain hidden despite the legal obligation on FVWL to provide an updated statement of shareholdings. However the numbers that have been provided so far appear to stretch credibility like bubblegum. The £5m loan itself was devoid of any commercial rationale  and to exchange it for 8% of the shares, if that is really what has happened, is beyond absurd.

I strongly suspect that Lord Agnew has been spitting feathers for months and the conversion of irrecoverable loans into shares of dubious value has been a shabby tactic to get some of the dodgy loans off the books with the entirely spurious notion that one day the shares might be worth summat.

Thanks Bob.

I've just wrote something and noted BTID had kindly replied to mt earlier post, so I parked what I wrote to answer him, only to find you have kindly replied now too.

I have now posted my original text that I put to one side to reply to BTID, which I think may pick up one or two of the points/issues you kindly have raised.

Clearly there is a mismatch between the governments £5m loan apparently accounting for 8% of FV (in the EFL eyes) and yet having acquired 1.5m shares (out of just over 4m) in the eyes of CH.

I think the former is clearly pie in the sky and 'manufactured' that way simply for FV to receive the money within the 'rules' of the EFL.

The latter is clearly the true position.

I suspect there are possibly two loans rolled up in that totalling £9.5m or maybe £10m - and that is why the shares require a 200% premium when settled.

As I've said above whether the government should be propping up financially shaky football clubs like us with taxpayers money is clearly a different matter although I doubt much thought was given to it at the time as there was a fear of the whole economy possibly collapsing.

Business is business as they say, I don't believe FV have done anything wrong as such but I do think it is the taxpayer (and our children and their children) who will end up paying for all this.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it was Dale Vince who put the idea of this in to Sharon's mind!

72Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Thu Jan 27 2022, 23:46

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Its all a contrivance isn't it, Sluffy, but we'll have to wait for FV to provide the details they are legally obliged to provide. They don't seem to be in much of a hurry but lets look at it from another perspective. FV agreed to pay too much for BWFC and took on debts they were never likely to be able to afford to repay and so were stalling as much as they could.
 
One of those debts was the Eddie Davies Trust. During his lifetime Eddie spent the best part of £200 million on Bolton Wanderers and vast swathes of that money went in taxes on the overpaid footballers and managers of BWFC. However by virtue of taking £5m of taxpayers money effectively as a gift, FV were able to repay half of the remaining debt due to EDT.

P.S. It wouldn't surprise me if Dale Vince had played some part in it all. He looked very pleased with himself when striding out with George Eustice last year. He'd already got a £15million COVID loan and was looking to get another £25million.

73Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Fri Jan 28 2022, 00:02

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Its all a contrivance isn't it, Sluffy, but we'll have to wait for FV to provide the details they are legally obliged to provide. They don't seem to be in much of a hurry but lets look at it from another perspective. FV agreed to pay too much for BWFC and took on debts they were never likely to be able to afford to repay and so were stalling as much as they could.
 
One of those debts was the Eddie Davies Trust. During his lifetime Eddie spent the best part of £200 million on Bolton Wanderers and vast swathes of that money went in taxes on the overpaid footballers and managers of BWFC. However by virtue of taking £5m of taxpayers money effectively as a gift, FV were able to repay half of the remaining debt due to EDT.

I certainly see it as all contrived.

As for Eddie, I understand the point you make but for me two wrongs don't make a right - never have, never will.

Not for me to judge others though.


Things could be worse, just imagine if Manchester United had got a taxpayers loan!!!

:bomb:

74Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Fri Jan 28 2022, 09:30

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

I'm not going to castigate Sharon for taking out this loan or for converting loans to shares but I would like to know the truth, not some contrivance of the truth.

If the only money FV has got from 'the taxpayer' is £5million, that should have 'bought' 18% of the company at £6.7878 per share or 14% at £8.48746. Both of these figures are, of course, shocking overvaluations but if the taxpayer has ended up with a derisory 8% where have the rest of the shares gone?

75Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Fri Jan 28 2022, 11:47

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

The plot thickens. Another document has arrived at Companies House in the last hour.
You can't see it yet but whenever there's a contrivance there's often a cock-up somewhere alongside it. Lets see what this latest effort says.

Its public money and Sharon must account for it.

76Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Fri Jan 28 2022, 13:16

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I don't believe Sharon has done anything wrong, legally or morally, she's a business woman and took a business decision that was there for others to take too.

I don't think the government's policy was wrong either, they had to face a choice of many businesses failing in the pandemic and causing mass unemployment resulting in the government paying unemployment and other benefits (for who knows how long?).  Also less people in employment, less tax income, and all the other financial economic and social consequences.

How do you police something like this when the tsunami of need hits at the same time?

The governments choice was do nothing, do the job properly (but it simply couldn't with the resources they had in face of the overwhelming need required literally immediately), or do what they did, knowing the system would probably be abused by some.

The same scenario faced the government on everything they did at the start of the pandemic, PPE equipment, planning for herd immunity, building the unused Nightingale hospitals, going in to lockdown (to late), keeping the boarders open (to long), establishing a vaccine team and getting the vaccine orders and in peoples arms before the rest of the world.

Clearly somethings they got brilliantly right and some things were disastrous.

Decisions had to be made.

In respect of FV I don't think it is the worst one ever, Sharon et al have put in around £10m of their own money so they are unlikely to walkaway from that.  There is some sort of a fighting chance that at least some of the government loan will be repaid at some point the future and if it isn't the full amount, then as long as it is less than what the government would have had to pay in unemployment benefits and lost tax revenues if FV had failed if they hadn't been bailed out (opportunity costing and all that), then they (we the taxpayers) have broken even on this one.

Anyway, did you note the new value of the share capital on this form?

Seems a strange total?

It is saying there now are 4,596,504.1920 shares - an increase of 471,458.1920 shares?

Why the fractions?

Wonder what that is all about???

77Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Fri Jan 28 2022, 14:13

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Thanks Sluffy. We may know a bit more when we see this latest document but its the confirmation statement that we really need to see and Sharon should not have been dragging her heels over it. It should have been filed last Monday at the latest and still hasn't been.

Whatever today's document may say, when we get to see it, there seems little doubt in my mind that the taxpayer has been ripped off by the incompetence/negligence of the government bank.

So far as we know, FV shareholders have contributed £2million in shares and £7.5m in loans converted to shares. i.e £9.5million in total.

Again so far as we know, the government/taxpayer has contributed £5million in loans converted to shares. In other words the taxpayer has stumped up 34% of the capital and ended up with only 8% of the shares (so we are told). If they ever turned out to be worth anything at all, the taxpayer should, at least, get its fair share back but it isn't going to whatever the future holds.

This latest piece of business did not take place at the outset of the pandemic but in October 2021, so I'm afraid that the excuses don't wash with me any more than they seemed to do with Lord Agnew, who plainly was spitting feathers at the bank's activities.

P.S. Ken Cooper? Its explained here:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bolton-wanderers-now-partly-owned-22905872

78Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Fri Jan 28 2022, 14:45

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:This latest piece of business did not take place at the outset of the pandemic but in October 2021, so I'm afraid that the excuses don't wash with me any more than they seemed to do with Lord Agnew, who plainly was spitting feathers at the bank's activities.

Thanks Bob.

You are correct that the loan was converted to shares on 2021 but the loan itself was taken out in in August 2020.

Ok not the onset of the pandemic itself but direct collateral damage financially resulting from it.

It seems clear that FV didn't have the money to pay it off in 2021 so what other choices were available at the time?

The way I understood things if FV couldn't repay the loan the government  'approved lender' would have placed FV into Administration and as we know, its creditors amount to more than its assets, so the company would have faced a real prospect of liquidation.

Maybe in taxpayers terms that was the correct way to go.

I don't know why the decision was taken to swop the loan for equity but FV did have that option and took it.

I don't doubt that whoever drew up the scheme that allowed this had none other than the best of intentions.

Then again isn't those what the road to hell are paved with?

79Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Sat Jan 29 2022, 09:15

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Thanks again Sluffy

Forgive me if I cut to the chase but this latest episode seems to me to fall into the 'taking candy from a baby' category rather than 'cautious and prudent business practice'. Five million of taxpayers' smackers should buy you a bit more than 8% of not very much.

FV are keeping us waiting for the list of shareholders and shareholdings at 10 January 2022 probably because Companies House will let them get away with it. It should have been on the file by 24 January at the latest.

This new document, dated 21 January, is still not available to see but, in the circumstances, is beginning to take on the guise of something between a smokescreen and a diversion.

Sharon's interview with Jason Elliott, that started this thread, was actually more revealing than I knew at the time. Making it look like it was out of kindness and appreciation for JME was a clever tactic. I think that the interview was actually for Sharon's benefit; her chance to get in a few explanations of her own before the media cottoned on to the £5million taxpayers giveaway.

80Who do you believe? - Page 4 Empty Re: Who do you believe? Sat Jan 29 2022, 12:38

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I'm interested to see who has put in another £471,458.1920 (for presumably)  a £1 per share.

I suspect it is the (first/second) government loan.

There must have been a reason why FV put in a total of a further £7.5m equity recently to take their total holding to £9.5m.

The only obvious reason to me for them to do that was that they had no choice - and that they were required to do so to match fund government loans.

The first loan required no matched funding to access - but did if it was later converted to shares, the second loan always required matched funding however.

The first loan also accrued interest.

I'm wondering if the first loan amounted to the latest total being based principal (say £4.5m) plus interest?

Although saying this I had in my mind that the interest was 8% which if so doesn't seem to fit in with my speculation.

(Anyway putting that aside just to conclude)

The first loans principal would then have been £4.5m the second loan £5m and matching equity from FV would be the amount they have now put in.


As for the EFL valuing FV's ownership at 8%, I think I might have cracked that one.

I've no expertise in shares as I have stated a few times already but this is my thinking.

This is the EFL's rule -

105         Interests in More Than One Football Club

105.5     The holding of not more than 10 per cent of the share capital of any football club shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Regulation 105 provided that those shares are, in the opinion of the Board, held purely for investment purposes only.

This I understanding is the definition of share capital -

In accounting, the share capital of a corporation is the nominal value of issued shares (that is, the sum of their par values, sometimes indicated on share certificates). If the allocation price of shares is greater than the par value, as in a rights issue, the shares are said to be sold at a premium (variously called share premium, additional paid-in capital or paid-in capital in excess of par). Commonly, the share capital is the total of the nominal share capital and the premium share capital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_capital

So the government - on paper at least - have bought £5m worth of shares (at a premium) in a company valued at £62.5m and so as far as EFL is concerned owns just 8% of the share capital.

In the real world the shares would not trade for anything like that.

In the real world the government have not paid a premium for their share holding, they have simply given a loan of £5m.

I'm thinking that in reality they have given two loans the first for £4.5m plus interest and the second for £5m.

If so they can't own shares to that amount in FV otherwise it would value BWFC in the eyes of the EFL to be worth over £120m, or conversely take their share ownership to 16% of £62.5m exceeding the EFL limit.

I'm guessing the shares worth just over £4.5m being issued now is equivalent to the first government loan but will be in the name of the 'bank' of the approved lender - which would mean as a third party they too would also fall under the EFL's 10% share ownership rule.

I also reckon there is a reason why the government has included a 200% premium on their shares at point of settlement and that in some way as having overall say in the future of a sale.

I'm sure we will find out what is what eventually!


Is all of this legal by the way as it seems to me the share price has been artificially manipulated to do all this - if this is what they (the government/FV) have actually done?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 10]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

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