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

They may have made the deadline - CH usually take a day or two to put the accounts on the website. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt until then!

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:They may have made the deadline - CH usually take a day or two to put the accounts on the website. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt until then!

I don't think so, Barry. Take Cambridge United for example. Accounts signed on 28 March and on CH website on 28 March.

Morecambe might be last League 1 club to file this year. They have wangled a three month extension. There's things afoot at the Mazuma. 20 year-old businessman from Brum supposedly putting money in.  Why.

Fleetwood have the same auditors as FV. Their accounts were signed off on 29 March and on the CH file the same day. Anyway I don't think we want any distractions this weekend.

MK Dons filed their 2022 accounts yesterday leaving just Bolton and Charlton on the League 1 naughty step with the red 'Accounts overdue' warning sign on the CH file.

Three clubs with July year-ends have until the end of April to file and three others have wangled extended deadlines.

Not that I'm too bothered about it this week.

FVWL Hotel Ltd accounts were filed this morning. They can't be seen yet but I expect that FVWL Football Ltd and Football Ventures (Whites) Ltd, the holding company, will be filed today as well.

The other two company accounts have now landed at Companies House as predicted. They can't be seen yet.

Companies House cover themselves by giving themselves a ten-day period for processing. In practice they are usually processed within 24 hours.

I can see the FV accounts on the CH website now. I haven’t had a detailed look, but I did notice they were signed on 29th March. 
More later.

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:I can see the FV accounts on the CH website now. I haven’t had a detailed look, but I did notice they were signed on 29th March. 
More later.

Thanks Barry. The gap between signing and filing is worth noting. It looks like they could quite easily have been filed on time but weren't.

On a quick view the operating loss of £5.75m is high. Is that 'sustainable'?

Cancellation of prior year interest charges has reduced the overall reported loss for the year to £3.7m.

There seem to be some interesting bits and pieces in the notes but I haven't time to go through it all. There are more pressing issues demanding my attention at the present time.

I see that a separate thread has been started for the for the 2022 accounts so we might as well continue afresh on there for all our views and opinions on them please.

Thanks.

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

A big write up by the EFL Magazine on Sharon.

I can't seem to copy and paste it, so here is the link to the whole magazine (for free) with Sharon on the front page!

The article is quite a long one but the two things that caught my eye was that she says next season is already fully funded(!) and that she refers openly to the Swiss Consortium investors (so she must know them in flesh and blood rather some absent foreign investors - was that me having a dig at the Wigan owner perhaps - but I think you see my point).

Anyway -

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

Seems there was another allotment of shares filed today, 336,832 at £6.67962 = £2,250,000

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

My guess is that this is half of the £4.5m bond money FV have recently received.

My thinking is that £2.25m has been committed for work on the training pitch, the new TV screen and possibly even the transfer fees we've just paid out(?) and the remainder (the other £2.25m) put into shares.

My thinking is that if FV received the money then the shares would be in the name of FV and the club presumably buys them back at some point in the future (and thus cancels them) when they need the money for other works or transfers.

In theory at least it puts the £2.25m in shares at risk if the club falls into Administration (shares in the company then becomes worthless) but on the other hand if the money is not put into shares it would need to be banked and then it becomes an unsecured creditor on the balance sheet (or in simple words if FV wanted to sell the club the balance sheet looks a lot better by £2.25m because the money has been put in shares (which the new owner needs to buy to take control of BWFC) and the business looks that much financially healthier because in practice it would have removed removed a £2.25m creditor off the balance sheet which would otherwise have had to be shown on there).

Sorry Sluffy but FV can't convert any of the bond money into shares without the consent of the bondholders. However having just raised all this money from supporters, shouldn't FV be a bit more open with supporters about who has provided this additional money and who owns the new shares?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy but FV can't convert any of the bond money into shares without the consent of the bondholders. However having just raised all this money from supporters, shouldn't FV be a bit more open with supporters about who has provided this additional money and who owns the new shares?

Thanks Bob I didn't know that.

I was thinking along the lines that if the bond money came into the 'club', that the 'club' puts it into shares under the 'clubs' name and when it wants the money the 'club' sells the shares back to itself (thus cancelling them) and the money is then able to be put into a bank account to be spent on the remaining things it said it would do (new pitch, new TV, super IT highway at the stadium and anything over the initial £3.5m bond offer, used in transfers), then why should that not be acceptable to everyone?

I'm not sure what the difference is (I'm sure there are though) in the club putting the money into shares, rather than a bank account, in that either way the money would be under the control of the 'club' at all times?

What's the difference, type of thing?


It does seem odd to my mind that someone has at this time bought another £2.25m of shares that is more or less exactly half of the money invested in the bond and that £4.5m being passed on to the club from the bond broker (if this is the correct term?) on the very day (or close to it) that the bond money was received by the 'club'.

Just seems too much of a coincidence to me and I tend to be wary of coincidences as more often than not - I find that they aren't and have been done deliberately!


Note I've used the phrase 'club' but it is more likely to be FV or possibly FVWL Ltd.

If FV wanted supporters to know the facts they'd tell them, wouldn't they? Its fascinating in a way how they have played cat and mouse over the finances, preaching a mantra of sustainability whilst consistently losing money and having to find new sources of dosh to plug the gaps. And there is still the small matter of the £5.5m PBP debt which has been outstanding for more than seven years, with no interest after it was all written off.
 
Michael James is the sole director of PBP but it isn't actually his money, or most of it isn't.

Just for information.

I didn't want to start a new thread so this seem a good as place as any...

There appears to be a 'dick pic' in circulation (I've seen it myself) of someone who looks like IE showing off his 'meat' (but not his two 'veg')

I'm not saying it IS him - personally I couldn't tell who it was, but the 6 or 7 second video was flashed up (see what I did there) on another BWFC forum but has since been taken down.

I don't think there's actually anything wrong about sending dick pics (Hue Edwards for instance) between consenting adults but probably not the wisest thing to do!

I think that needs its own thread Sluffy, we could all contribute our own offerings 

Norpig wrote:I think that needs its own thread Sluffy, we could all contribute our own offerings 

Not a good idea, Norpig

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Norpig wrote:I think that needs its own thread Sluffy, we could all contribute our own offerings 

Not a good idea, Norpig

Are you insecure about the size of your todger Bob?

Norpig wrote:we could all contribute our own offerings 

That's a very cocky statement coming from a bloke whose wife keeps a magnifying glass next to the bed.