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

Welcome to my world, Mr Pig.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Understanding the difference between income and capital is fundamental, Sluffy, but  let me deal with one of Barrys points. 

The P&L account is the place to deal with profits, losses and gains. But if you mix up recurring revenues and incomes with one-off gains the ‘true and fair’ principle that applies to all accounts may become compromised and folk can end up with the wrong ideas entirely. That’s what’s happened here imo.

Norpig wrote:If this is all simplified then i'm definitely thicker than i thought.

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

Don't sell yourself short mate, I'm not following chunks of this either!

I do now think Bob is right in what he's said and I've not been understanding it correctly.

The penny has just dropped with me is that a 'charge' is against assets - and assets charged against are capital ones.

So if the loan is secured against assets and paid out from these assets if not settled on time - then logically they must be deemed loans against capital and not revenue loans which are unsecured.

Thus it is irrelevant that the loans are 'different' from when they were originally against Burnden Leisure, that they have been waived and then set against FV assets.

There must I guess be some sort of thinking by both the accountants and the auditors as to why they've showed EDT's write off under P and L - I assume perhaps something to do with the total value of Capital not decreasing by £2.75m following the write off - so to balance that fact it most be a profit shown to P and L?

I don't know where this amount should properly be shown - the Balance sheet presumably as Barry states - but wherever it should both the accountants and auditors had no problem it being shown in P and L.

It's difficult for those of us who run a mile at the sight of a ledger, but joking aside, at least some effort is being made to try to clue us in on what's going on in the murky depths, and it's appreciated.
I fear though, Norpig and I will be shedding very little in the way of light.

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

Sorry Sluffy but it does belong in the P&L. Its the failure to make clear how it’s been dealt with that I don’t like and the inevitable consequence that interested parties will misunderstand the financial results. 

If you look at the past accounts of Burnden Leisure you’ll see how debt write offs were dealt with in the past with no room for any misunderstanding of the financial results.

boltonbonce wrote:It's difficult for those of us who run a mile at the sight of a ledger, but joking aside, at least some effort is being made to try to clue us in on what's going on in the murky depths, and it's appreciated.
I fear though, Norpig and I will be shedding very little in the way of light.

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

Whatever people's views are of Bob are, we are very lucky that he is prepared to share with us his vast knowledge and understanding of accounts - which certainly dwarfs my tiny understanding of them.

Lucky also that Barry contributes too, as although he states he isn't an accountant his knowledge of accounts are far superior to mine as can be evidenced by him nailing exactly the government loan to shares which certainly had me flummoxed!

I won't comment about Wanderlust as you know my views on his so called accountancy knowledge - he even had to tell a clear lie on here (re Radisson) in the last day or so on this very thread - why does he feel the need to do such things???

As you can plainly see from the above today I've been struggling myself to understand things - EDT's loan to have been Capital - which now I can see for myself it clearly was.

There's absolutely no need for you or Norpig to put yourselves down in any way - accountancy clearly isn't something easy to grasp without years of training and experience.

I'm more than happy to try and answer any questions that you may have - don't worry if you think they might make you look a bit numb because if you don't ask you won't learn.

Will you!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy but it does belong in the P&L. Its the failure to make clear how it’s been dealt with that I don’t like and the inevitable consequence that interested parties will misunderstand the financial results. 

If you look at the past accounts of Burnden Leisure you’ll see how debt write offs were dealt with in the past with no room for any misunderstanding of the financial results.

OK - there is a (semantic) difference between "renegotiating" and "getting away with not paying it" - although I'm sure someone must have had words about it at some point in time if only to gain consensus.
I'm also struggling to see why a debt write off has been ascribed as income unless it was accounted as paid and then came back in the form of a rebate. Is there another way? If so it doesn't spring to mind ATM.
What makes you so sure it's what you suggest? Surely the accounts wouldn't have been signed off if the true and fair principle was breached?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy but it does belong in the P&L. Its the failure to make clear how it’s been dealt with that I don’t like and the inevitable consequence that interested parties will misunderstand the financial results. 

If you look at the past accounts of Burnden Leisure you’ll see how debt write offs were dealt with in the past with no room for any misunderstanding of the financial results.

Ah thanks Bob.

I seemed to be closing in on it in the end but I'd clearly confused myself by thinking the Administration had somehow changed the nature of the loans shown now to FV.

It was only when the penny dropped for me that 'payment' of a defaulted loan would be a capital one from the assets it has been secured against, that I finally 'got it' that in that case the loan self-evidently must therefore be a capital one too!

I even came close to understanding why it would be shown in P and L too but doubted myself somewhat.

It's a good job for all of us interested in the accounts that you are here to light the way or us when we get lost as I often do!

wanderlust wrote:OK - there is a (semantic) difference between "renegotiating" and "getting away with not paying it" - although I'm sure someone must have had words about it at some point in time if only to gain consensus.

I'm also struggling to see why a debt write off has been ascribed as income unless it was accounted as paid and then came back in the form of a rebate. Is there another way? If so it doesn't spring to mind ATM.

What makes you so sure it's what you suggest? Surely the accounts wouldn't have been signed off if the true and fair principle was breached?

???

It is not a debt write off - it is a creditor waiving some of the money owed to them.

Ah! The penny has dropped. The write off should appear as operating expenses in a bad debt line under the creditors GP line which would then impact on the creditors OP and bottom line income.

wanderlust wrote:Ah! The penny has dropped. The write off should appear as operating expenses in a bad debt line under the creditors GP line which would then impact on the creditors OP and bottom line income.

???

No.

It isn't an operating expense at all???

It is the exact opposite, it is a 'one off' income receipt for that year which is added to operating income.

They (Burnden Leisure - now FV) have already received £5.5m but have only paid back £2.75m to settle the loan - meaning they have GAINED £2.75m in the transaction.

Hence it being shown as a one off special item in INCOME on the P and L account in order to balance that a £5.5m loan has been settled for just a payment of just £2.75m

Sluffy wrote:

???

No.

It isn't an operating expense at all???

It is the exact opposite, it is a 'one off' income receipt for that year which is added to operating income.

They (Burnden Leisure - now FV) have already received £5.5m but have only paid back £2.75m to settle the loan - meaning they have GAINED £2.75m in the transaction.

Hence it being shown as a one off special item in INCOME on the P and L account in order to balance that a £5.5m loan has been settled for just a payment of just £2.75m

I said Creditor's accounts. Money due is accounts receivable. When it's not paid it's usually accounted as an operating cost by convention. Conversely the debtor (FV) would account it as operating income - hence the perceived anomaly. Is that right Bob?

wanderlust wrote:
I said Creditor's accounts. Money due is accounts receivable. When it's not paid it's usually accounted as an operating cost by convention. Conversely the debtor (FV) would account it as operating income - hence the perceived anomaly. Is that right Bob?

Eh???

What anomaly?

This is what happened and why -

Sluffy wrote:They (Burnden Leisure - now FV) have already received £5.5m but have only paid back £2.75m to settle the loan - meaning they have GAINED £2.75m in the transaction.

Hence it being shown as a one off special item in INCOME on the P and L account in order to balance that a £5.5m loan has been settled for just a payment of just £2.75m

Also I'm pretty sure you aren't in Bob's good books after all the uncalled for and unwarranted abuse you've chucked at him - plus you've just accused him of somehow saying the accounts were in someway breached - which of course he never did!

So you might be waiting for a reply from him for quite sometime I suspect!

I prefer to stick to the facts, Sluffy. If Lusty want’s to wander off into blind alleys it doesn’t bother me. Neither do schoolyard insults on t’internet.

FV took on a difficult task and they’ve done OK on the whole but I do think that BWFC fans, in large numbers, have  been far too easily led into believing things that just don’t stack up on any rational assessment.

You might have noticed the absence of any intelligent commentary from the Supporters Trust. I’m not going to start supporting Morecambe, but what a contrast with the Shrimps ST.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I prefer to stick to the facts, Sluffy. If Lusty want’s to wander off into blind alleys it doesn’t bother me. Neither do schoolyard insults on t’internet.

FV took on a difficult task and they’ve done OK on the whole but I do think that BWFC fans, in large numbers, have  been far too easily led into believing things that just don’t stack up on any rational assessment.

You might have noticed the absence of any intelligent commentary from the Supporters Trust. I’m not going to start supporting Morecambe, but what a contrast with the Shrimps ST.

No I'm not at all surprised at the lack of comment from the ST (do they even have anyone with any expertise on understanding the accounts???) I think they now rely on what Iles reports in the BN - I seem to remember the ST retweeted his article.

It doesn't surprise me at the lack of understanding from those on WW either. One of their posters 'Eddie' who I believe to be an accountant and I reckon is the best on there for his financial views - but that isn't saying a great deal - and who I believe to be wide of the mark with his upbeat views this time, wrote -

"They show good progress, albeit trading was impacted significantly by Covid (obviously).

They’re also a year out of date - not that that is anyone’s fault, it’s the way accounts work - but for a business that has seen as many changes as we have over such a short period of time it does mean that annual accounts aren’t really relevant to the current situation by the time they are published.

Based on those, and knowing what has happened since, I’d bet that our financial year that has just ended last week will be pretty strong, and I reckon that we’re just about on an sure footing now. Obviously we won’t know until this time next year, but I get the sense that we’ll now be making decisions and spending money based on what we want to do, rather than what we need to do.".

I don't understand where his optimism derives from considering the accounts showed us trading at a loss of £13.76m for the year!!!

Sluffy wrote: Capital and Reserves - Note 22 (page 13, 16 of 41)?

This simply shows called up share capital at the time of just £2.75m plus Profit and Loss reserves of £14.3m in debit - showing FV.s actual loss for the year to be £13,769,015

Hence the need for Sharon, Luckock and James to pump their millions into FV for the required capital equity it urgently needed!

What did surprise me was (unless I missed it) there wasn't even a mention of the accounts on TW at all!

It is good that Barry has joined with us on here and independently of us broadly sees things the same way as we have been doing.

I have been contacted by someone who has been following our thread and my views as to FV being here more to do with property development than footballing reasons, which is kind of them to make the effort to say so but apart from him, Barry, you and myself I've not seen anyone else who hasn't been seduced by how FV are portrayed as the best thing since sliced bread was invented.

Of course the 4 of us could be wrong but seeing that we've read the accounts and I imagine most others haven't and are happy with what they've heard, I rather think they may well be living in ignorance.

I think the fact that we have the Back Street (garage) Boys from Daubhill with a start up company comprising of just £1 and the current owner a taxi driver, as our shirt sponsors, tends to suggest we might not be as financially secure as many folks think!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I prefer to stick to the facts, Sluffy. If Lusty want’s to wander off into blind alleys it doesn’t bother me. Neither do schoolyard insults on t’internet.

FV took on a difficult task and they’ve done OK on the whole but I do think that BWFC fans, in large numbers, have  been far too easily led into believing things that just don’t stack up on any rational assessment.

The facts Bob? Surely you're just speculating?

You're saying FV seem to have done OK, but something smells fishy and yet you don't know what it is for sure.
OK fair enough. I don't know for sure either - which was my original point that the 20/21 returns alone simply don't provide enough information to make a rational assessment - but do provide a basis for speculation - and you are speculating, even implying that they are doing something wrong without the facts to back it up.

Or am I wrong and you do actually know the facts of what lies behind the returns? If so, please spill the beans because we'd all love to know the details of the deals and transactions they've made since taking over.

Whatever it turns out to be, reducing debt is generally a sign of good management in my book, providing there are no hidden trade offs. But none of us know of any at this point in time.

You and your buddy have every right to make negative insinuations about FV and other organisations on a forum, but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that you are basing it on "the facts".

And for the record, I have no problem with your musings for the most part other than when you directly insult people, but try not get led by the nose by your sycophantic buddy into his well documented personal vendetta. He needs friends and approval, not a sidekick and you can be better than that.

wanderlust wrote:The facts Bob? Surely you're just speculating?

You're saying FV seem to have done OK, but something smells fishy and yet you don't know what it is for sure.
OK fair enough. I don't know for sure either - which was my original point that the 20/21 returns alone simply don't provide enough information to make a rational assessment - but do provide a basis for speculation - and you are speculating, even implying that they are doing something wrong without the facts to back it up.

Or am I wrong and you do actually know the facts of what lies behind the returns? If so, please spill the beans because we'd all love to know the details of the deals and transactions they've made since taking over.

Whatever it turns out to be, reducing debt is generally a sign of good management in my book, providing there are no hidden trade offs. But none of us know of any at this point in time.

You and your buddy have every right to make negative insinuations about FV and other organisations on a forum, but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that you are basing it on "the facts".

And for the record, I have no problem with your musings for the most part other than when you directly insult people, but try not get led by the nose by your sycophantic buddy into his well documented personal vendetta. He needs friends and approval, not a sidekick and you can be better than that.

Hahahaha!!!!

Well documented personal vendetta...

Needs friends and approval...

Looking for a sidekick...

You are an utter, utter nutjob!!!

The weather had got a bit gusty
And summat had smelled a tad musty
The Bullshit Brigade 
Were out on parade
And head of the troupe was ar’ Lusty

Thanks Sluffy. You are right, Eddie’s another ‘living the dream’.

I’ve reached no conclusions on what FV’s motives were or are except that I do believe Sharon fancied owning a footie club and that Michael James didn’t like the idea of BWFC going to the wall. There is, of course, the small matter of the c. £12 million of Tom Morris’s money PBP committed to keep BWFC afloat in 2016.

They haven’t taken any remuneration yet but they would be about as popular as Owen Oyston in Blackpool if they were to walk away awash with moolah having wangled a few million from the taxpayer on questionable pretexts.