Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Bolton's Accounts for year ending 30th June 2021

Bolton's Accounts for year ending 30th June 2021

+7
boltonbonce
karlypants
Natasha Whittam
BoltonTillIDie
Norpig
Sluffy
Ten Bobsworth
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 ... 14  Next

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 14]

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of Sharon & Nick, but here are a few initial observations on the statutory accounts – some of this may repeat comments by others.  Please excuse me if that's the case!


I see they were signed on 28th June, so probably lodged with Companies House on time – as I understand it CH always take a few days to put lodged documents on the site.

Unless I have misunderstood the wording, the audit has not been ‘qualified’ – a good thing!

The loss has come down a lot from the previous year - £1.467m down from £3.850m.

A lot of this is old news as it appeared in the post-balance sheet notes for the 2019/20 accounts.


For example, we already knew that an agreement had been reached with the Eddie Davies Trust to write off £2.75m of debt upon payment of £2.75m and a further £250k on promotion.
As Sluffy has commented, my assertion about the way the Future Fund works was correct – the £5m loan was provided 50% by the FF and 50% by shareholders (note 18).  This loan, which was always convertible, was actually converted into shares in October 2021, as was a further £7.5m of loans.

Again, as I suggested, but could not be certain until now, the shares issued in January 2022 were not issued at £1 each, which was their nominal value – I assume the CH document contained an error. I just couldn’t see why the price would have dropped between those October and the following January. It turns out they were issued at a price of £8.485 – the same price as the non-discounted shares issued in October 2021 (the FF and other convertible shares were, as is required under the FF scheme, issued at a 20% discount). 


I haven’t had a good look at the creditor situation yet, but I’d note a couple of points.  The accounts refer to Loan One (note 18) for £2.5m.  There is no mention of interest as the loan sits at the same value as last year. The latest administrator’s report for BWFC2019, note 5, reported a loan of £3,064,213 inclusive of interest, owed to Mr Warburton, secured on freehold land at Lostock adjacent to the training ground.  It might be fair to assume that these are one and the same, albeit with the interest missing for whatever reason.  The accounts also note that ‘…surplus land at Academy Way, Lostock, Bolton.’ has been sold.  Interesting?

Otherwise, although I haven’t done all the sums yet, I’m fairly sure the increase in creditors is simply the shareholder loans and convertible loan note for the FF deal, all of which have now been converted to equity.  Obviously, after that, the two big outstanding loans are the Warburton loan and the PBP loan, the latter having Michael James involvement.

A quick look at the creditors falling due after 12 months shows Other Creditors at £9.840m, of which the two loans mentioned above come to £9.688m, so very much the lion’s share.  Of the £8.179m Other Borrowings, £7,368,205 was the FF loan and a shareholder loan, both of which were converted into equity, as were the Loan Notes shown at £4,777,362.

I can’t see that there is enough detail to comment on the state of the administration other than in respect of the two large secured loans, but I’ll have a better look through when I’m less busy. One problem is that the administrator’s report for BWFC2019 was issued for year-ended 26th January 2022, so it might be difficult reconciling this with the FVW accounts that run to different dates.
Seems to me that they are doing OK Barry.
The FF is a match-funded loan so it made total sense to take advantage of it and it makes a huge difference if your main creditors are in essence supporting your efforts.  Maybe the next period will shed a little more light on how it's going? - I suspect there have been quite a few developments since then.
And I totally agree with your assessment of the scale of the challenge of promotion to the Championship - but that said, they seem to be giving it a go without going daft on expenditure and encouragingly, they've recruited some young players with potential rather than paying top dollar for the finished product.
There is clearly little sentimentality in their recruitment decision making - they're strictly business from what I can see.

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Like Barry I've not spent much time on the accounts. My job as Head Gardener at Bobsworth Towers keeps me far too busy.

Mind you I  played 18 holes of golf yesterday with another senior  gentleman. We were on foot followed by a group half our age with a buggy. Lazy gits, if you ask me.

However turning to Barry's understanding of the reason for the delay in FV's accounts. I don't think it stacks up. I have seen no recent evidence of CH being slow on these things. Both Ipswich Town and Crawley Town signed off their accounts on 29 June and both were on the CH file on 30 June.

There were only a handful of EFL clubs asking for a 3-month extension to the filing deadline (on the pretext of COVID) but FV were the only one to fail to meet the extended deadline. Although the delay is relatively small I suggest that there most probably was some reason for this failure to comply for the second year running.

I'm unsure whether Brother Maguire has addressed it but can I ask, on behalf of Norpig, where Barry and Sluffy think the £2.75m EDT write off is in the profit and loss account.

BarrygoestoBolton


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel

Good morning Bob.  That’s a good question. It actually appears as a post-balance sheet event in last year’s statutory accounts (note 23). No idea why it they haven’t put it in this one.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Good morning Bob.  That’s a good question. It actually appears as a post-balance sheet event in last year’s statutory accounts (note 23). No idea why it they haven’t put it in this one.
Saved me the trouble Barry - cheers. What do you make of the Radisson Hotels deal? And UKFF? There's obviously been some wheeling and dealing going on and despite EDT write off +1Y creditors are up by a mill. Seems like there are some serious moves afoot.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Good morning Bob.  That’s a good question. It actually appears as a post-balance sheet event in last year’s statutory accounts (note 23). No idea why it they haven’t put it in this one.
Saved me the trouble Barry - cheers. What do you make of the Radisson Hotels deal? And UKFF? There's obviously been some wheeling and dealing going on and despite EDT write off +1Y creditors are up by a mill. Seems like there are some serious moves afoot.

???

Seriously you are asking about the UKFF now???

And you've had the nerve to scoff at Bob and I over the last year or two about being bean counters and reading tealeaves and that all accounts are fake anyway???

You take the biscuit you mate, you really do.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
I'm unsure whether Brother Maguire has addressed it but can I ask, on behalf of Norpig, where Barry and Sluffy think the £2.75m EDT write off is in the profit and loss account.

I believe it to be explained under Note 4 Exceptional Items page 26 (29 of 41), which ties in with something you said earlier

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The first thing I noticed was that the £5.3m described as 'Other operating income ' isn't explained.

Note 4 in the accounts - although not listed specifically as such on the page 10 (13 of 41) numerically comes between notes 3 and 5, which have been, and are on either side of where Other Operating Income is shown and would account for a big chunk of it, if it did indeed apply to it directly.

That's how I had viewed things fwiw.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Good morning Bob.  That’s a good question. It actually appears as a post-balance sheet event in last year’s statutory accounts (note 23). No idea why it they haven’t put it in this one.

I don't understand what you are saying Barry?

Note 23 is for Operating Lease Commitments, so I assume you mean Note 24?

Even so the item is not discussed there but instead at Note 4 as I've said in my reply to Bob is the relevant bit that answers his question.

Do you agree with that or are you talking about something that I'm not otherwise understanding you about?

BarrygoestoBolton


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel

Good evening Sluffy. The note 23 I referred to is in last year’s accounts. 

Note 23 is Events after the reporting date and the section is Other Creditors.

BarrygoestoBolton


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel

… to be clear, I meant the previous year’s accounts for year ended 30th June 2020. Sorry for any confusion.

BarrygoestoBolton


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel

wanderlust wrote:
Saved me the trouble Barry - cheers. What do you make of the Radisson Hotels deal? And UKFF? There's obviously been some wheeling and dealing going on and despite EDT write off +1Y creditors are up by a mill. Seems like there are some serious moves afoot.
I realise many people have commented on the UKFF deal previously, but let me throw in my own opinion. The UKFF was set up to see companies through a difficult period. Obviously, with the huge reduction in gate revenue (despite a large number of faithful fans not asking for their season ticket money back), BWFC was seriously affected. It’s a moot point as to whether, if the UKFF had not existed, the existing investors would have stepped up to the plate anyway, but I would make the point that in the three years FVW have owned the club they always have. From the investors point of view they’ve ended up giving away around 8% of the equity and have a completely silent, passive shareholder. In my view it’s a deal that worked for the investors and operated in a way the UKFF was meant to - by ensuring a company that may have been at risk (although quite possibly wasn’t) could carry on trading in a stressed situation. The only loss the investors will suffer is at the point of sale as I really can’t see FVW ever being likely to pay dividends. 
On the Radisson Hotel deal, this is outside my experience, but that won’t stop me conjecturing! Although I was in business I never got involved in hospitality. However, I imagine a deal like this works by the hotel receiving bookings through the Radisson network and paying away some revenue to Radisson. I guess FV have done their sums and figure the net income they’ll make as a result of increased bookings outweighs the amount they’ll pay to Radisson. Apologies if that is blindingly obvious.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Thanks Barry I now understand your original comment.

I still reckon my answer to Bob answers his query though.

As for the government loan I think the point originally made by Bob was that it was highly questionable how FV passed the criteria for the loan in the first place - I don't believe for instance any other British professional football club managed to (in fact I'm not aware of any sports club professional or otherwise that have) and the other point being is it good value for money to the British tax payer to invest £2.5m for a 9% share in a business that has over £30m of creditors on the books at that time and had yet to turn a profit whilst it had been in existence.

However after saying that we are looking at FV as being in the business of being a football club and hotel - what if the government were to look at FV instead as a development company, who owned land already had outline planning permission granted and financial backers (the swiss consortium) in place?

I speculate if the government viewed the application for FF funding in that light, then it might well be feasible that such an approach WOULD meet the government's criteria and a 9% ownership in a property development company with all its ducks already lined up and ready to go, would indeed be value for money for the public purse!

It certainly would make a whole lot of more sense to me.

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

That’s not quite how I see it Barry. FV have certainly come up with the money to keep the show on the road and get us back in to League 1 with a manager and a squad of players good enough to give fans reasonable optimism for the coming season.

How they have done it and where all the moolah has come from is shrouded in mystery and a liberal dollop of spin but it does seem they have tapped into every COVID support scheme available including one that was never intended for football clubs at all. The Innovation scheme was set up to support innovative companies through the pandemic not to provide money to allow underfunded football clubs settle debts at a discount. One can only view with virtual disbelief how someone managed to wangle that one.

I’ll come back on the accounts later but it seems that these accounts have been presented in a manner that would persuade many a reader to gain an entirely erroneous view of the financial results and progress made, or to be more exact not made, in reducing the operating deficit.

It seems that Brother Maguire spotted that one quite quickly but fell short of following through on accounting that at best is misleading.

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Thanks Sluffy 
I feel that there is too much overestimation of the potential financial gain to the club of the Middlebrook Masterplan. I suspect it stalled because of the infrastructure costs involved and has been revived because of the potential Levelling Up funds. 
I also think that there’s a long way to go before anyone gets any profit out of the plan. PBP will be a major player and don’t forget that that is 80% owned by the man who has recently decided to pull out of the club’s shirt sponsorship deal. Don’t forget either that PBP is due to be repaid a large debt next month with no indication where FV are going to get the money from.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

You are very welcome Bob, you've helped me out numerous times.

I don't pretend to understand where all this is going and how the big boys will slice up the cake and get their shares in the end and all that but for me it explains what this is all about - namely FV is about a major development and not a football club - that was just a means to an end.

I'm not suggesting FV will be some sort of absentee landlords now that the development seemingly is moving ahead but rather (in my mind at least) a football club is not a fit for their prime objective and I would reason that the more the development takes off, the more likely that FVWL Football and FVWL Hotel will be floated off and sold.

In a way you could even look at it as what Eddie wanted Anderson to do namely, turn the club around financially and sell it on and make a profit for himself in doing so.

FV have turned the club around (although at a loss to themselves) and now could sell it on, particularly if they could get it to Championship level in the next year or two, and the profit they make for themselves on the development would offset the losses they made on running the club in that time.

As for PBP are they really looking for repayment in August - maybe they are - but the offer to waive the interest by a set date last year wasn't taken up on and maybe the same will happen again where the loan is extended for yet another period (with interest waived again?).  As you say PBP will be involved in the development in some form or other - not least because of their charge over the hotel - they could in theory take over the hotel in lieu of non payment - so if they are in no rush for their £5m back then why not continue to hold the strong card they already hold in their hand - it might come in very useful for them later on down the line?

(The non sponsoring of the shirts suggest to me that PBP sees the development to be its focus and not BWFC - let the Directors underwrite that now that the development seems to be going ahead).

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy wrote:You are very welcome Bob, you've helped me out numerous times.

I don't pretend to understand where all this is going and how the big boys will slice up the cake and get their shares in the end and all that but for me it explains what this is all about - namely FV is about a major development and not a football club - that was just a means to an end.

I'm not suggesting FV will be some sort of absentee landlords now that the development seemingly is moving ahead but rather (in my mind at least) a football club is not a fit for their prime objective and I would reason that the more the development takes off, the more likely that FVWL Football and FVWL Hotel will be floated off and sold.

In a way you could even look at it as what Eddie wanted Anderson to do namely, turn the club around financially and sell it on and make a profit for himself in doing so.

FV have turned the club around (although at a loss to themselves) and now could sell it on, particularly if they could get it to Championship level in the next year or two, and the profit they make for themselves on the development would offset the losses they made on running the club in that time.

As for PBP are they really looking for repayment in August - maybe they are - but the offer to waive the interest by a set date last year wasn't taken up on and maybe the same will happen again where the loan is extended for yet another period (with interest waived again?).  As you say PBP will be involved in the development in some form or other - not least because of their charge over the hotel - they could in theory take over the hotel in lieu of non payment - so if they are in no rush for their £5m back then why not continue to hold the strong card they already hold in their hand - it might come in very useful for them later on down the line?

(The non sponsoring of the shirts suggest to me that PBP sees the development to be its focus and not BWFC - let the Directors underwrite that now that the development seems to be going ahead).
I think PBP do want their money back, Sluffy, and were willing to give up on any interest to get it. EDT wanted their money back too and were willing to settle for half of it on the basis that ‘half a loaf is better than no bread’.
Brett Warburton will be wanting his money back too but I doubt he’s going to get all of it.
PBP own large tracts of the car park for which they paid big money including premium for hope value. It helped save the club but brought  nothing but jibes from the Beeno and the Supporters Trust. 

Tom Morris is a very successful businessman with a good reputation so far as I know. Does he really want to stick around for more of the same? I wouldn’t have thought so.

BarrygoestoBolton


Mario Jardel
Mario Jardel

Just a quick response to you, Bob, on UKFF. I’ve re-read the qualification requirements:

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

There’s nothing about innovative companies I can see. I have no idea why other football clubs didn’t apply. Maybe they didn’t see it as either cheap money or wish to have the UKFF as a shareholder. Clearly, FVW saw it as fine. 

I was reflecting on the debt situation. I may be wrong, but it looks to me as if any new debt taken on since FVW came on the scene has now been converted to equity, but after 30th June 2022, so it still appears as debt here, and all the old debt from the administration is gradually being chipped away. As the last liquidators statement for BWFC2019 post-dates the year-ended 2021 accounts it’s a bit tricky to reconcile the two.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:
I realise many people have commented on the UKFF deal previously, but let me throw in my own opinion. The UKFF was set up to see companies through a difficult period. Obviously, with the huge reduction in gate revenue (despite a large number of faithful fans not asking for their season ticket money back), BWFC was seriously affected. It’s a moot point as to whether, if the UKFF had not existed, the existing investors would have stepped up to the plate anyway, but I would make the point that in the three years FVW have owned the club they always have. From the investors point of view they’ve ended up giving away around 8% of the equity and have a completely silent, passive shareholder. In my view it’s a deal that worked for the investors and operated in a way the UKFF was meant to - by ensuring a company that may have been at risk (although quite possibly wasn’t) could carry on trading in a stressed situation. The only loss the investors will suffer is at the point of sale as I really can’t see FVW ever being likely to pay dividends. 
On the Radisson Hotel deal, this is outside my experience, but that won’t stop me conjecturing! Although I was in business I never got involved in hospitality. However, I imagine a deal like this works by the hotel receiving bookings through the Radisson network and paying away some revenue to Radisson. I guess FV have done their sums and figure the net income they’ll make as a result of increased bookings outweighs the amount they’ll pay to Radisson. Apologies if that is blindingly obvious.
Yup - I knew you were referring to the previous year's notes hence my interest in UKFF and Radisson. I suspect you're right about UKFF given the nature of the investment group. Like you, I don't know what the Radisson deal is but I do know that the Radisson group is Chinese-owned so I'm curious - and perhaps slightly concerned if the deal is about using their booking system Smile

I disagree with Bob though about tapping into the grants - I think it's smart management and if they meet the criteria they should go for every penny they can get.
Put another way, it's hardly their fault if the government are incapable of setting criteria to reflect their objective properly - or even defining the criteria properly - and as FV clearly meet whatever criteria they did set, there is absolutely nothing wrong in accessing the funding. And after all, we need every penny that we can legally get.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
BarrygoestoBolton wrote:
I realise many people have commented on the UKFF deal previously, but let me throw in my own opinion. The UKFF was set up to see companies through a difficult period. Obviously, with the huge reduction in gate revenue (despite a large number of faithful fans not asking for their season ticket money back), BWFC was seriously affected. It’s a moot point as to whether, if the UKFF had not existed, the existing investors would have stepped up to the plate anyway, but I would make the point that in the three years FVW have owned the club they always have. From the investors point of view they’ve ended up giving away around 8% of the equity and have a completely silent, passive shareholder. In my view it’s a deal that worked for the investors and operated in a way the UKFF was meant to - by ensuring a company that may have been at risk (although quite possibly wasn’t) could carry on trading in a stressed situation. The only loss the investors will suffer is at the point of sale as I really can’t see FVW ever being likely to pay dividends. 
On the Radisson Hotel deal, this is outside my experience, but that won’t stop me conjecturing! Although I was in business I never got involved in hospitality. However, I imagine a deal like this works by the hotel receiving bookings through the Radisson network and paying away some revenue to Radisson. I guess FV have done their sums and figure the net income they’ll make as a result of increased bookings outweighs the amount they’ll pay to Radisson. Apologies if that is blindingly obvious.

Yup - I knew you were referring to the previous year's notes hence my interest in UKFF and Radisson. I suspect you're right about UKFF given the nature of the investment group. Like you, I don't know what the Radisson deal is but I do know that the Radisson group is Chinese-owned so I'm curious - and perhaps slightly concerned if the deal is about using their booking system Smile

I disagree with Bob though about tapping into the grants - I think it's smart management and if they meet the criteria they should go for every penny they can get.
Put another way, it's hardly their fault if the government are incapable of setting criteria to reflect their objective properly - or even defining the criteria properly - and as FV clearly meet whatever criteria they did set, there is absolutely nothing wrong in accessing the funding. And after all, we need every penny that we can legally get.

Really?

Radisson wasn't mentioned in the previous years accounts...

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Just a quick response to you, Bob, on UKFF. I’ve re-read the qualification requirements:

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

There’s nothing about innovative companies I can see. I have no idea why other football clubs didn’t apply. Maybe they didn’t see it as either cheap money or wish to have the UKFF as a shareholder. Clearly, FVW saw it as fine.

Sorry but the document I copied this from won't allow me to manipulate it but if you look under the first question shown in blue the answer to it clearly states - The purpose of the FF is to support innovative UK companies...

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


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

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Define "innovative"....

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 14]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 ... 14  Next

Reply to topic

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum